PURPOSE: To compare contrast characteristics and image quality of 1.0 M gadobutrol with 0.5 M Gd-DTPA for time-resolved three-dimensional pulmonary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-one patients and five healthy volunteers were examined with a contrast-enhanced time-resolved pulmonary MRA protocol (fast low-angle shot [FLASH] three-dimensional, TR/TE = 2.2/1.0 msec, flip angle: 25 degrees, scan time per three-dimensional data set = 5.6 seconds). Patients were randomized to receive either 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) or 0.2 mmol/kg bw gadobutrol, or 0.2 mmol/kg bw Gd-DTPA. Volunteers were examined three times, twice with 0.2 mmol/kg bw gadobutrol using two different flip angles and once with 0.2 mmol/kg bw Gd-DTPA. All contrast injections were performed at a rate of 5 mL/second. Image analysis included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements in lung arteries and veins, as well as a subjective analysis of image quality. RESULTS: In patients, significantly higher SNR and CNR were observed with Gd-DTPA compared to both doses of gadobutrol (SNR: 35-42 vs.17-25; CNR 33-39 vs. 16-23; P < or = 0.05). No relevant differences were observed between 0.1 mmol/kg bw and 0.2 mmol/kg bw gadobutrol. In volunteers, gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA achieved similar SNR and CNR. A significantly higher SNR and CNR was observed for gadobutrol-enhanced MRA with an increased flip angle of 40 degrees. Image quality was rated equal for both contrast agents. CONCLUSION: No relevant advantages of 1.0 M gadobutrol over 0.5 M Gd-DTPA were observed for time-resolved pulmonary MRA in this study. Potential explanations are T2/T2*-effects caused by the high intravascular concentration when using high injection rates. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare contrast characteristics and image quality of 1.0 M gadobutrol with 0.5 M Gd-DTPA for time-resolved three-dimensional pulmonary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients and five healthy volunteers were examined with a contrast-enhanced time-resolved pulmonary MRA protocol (fast low-angle shot [FLASH] three-dimensional, TR/TE = 2.2/1.0 msec, flip angle: 25 degrees, scan time per three-dimensional data set = 5.6 seconds). Patients were randomized to receive either 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) or 0.2 mmol/kg bw gadobutrol, or 0.2 mmol/kg bw Gd-DTPA. Volunteers were examined three times, twice with 0.2 mmol/kg bw gadobutrol using two different flip angles and once with 0.2 mmol/kg bw Gd-DTPA. All contrast injections were performed at a rate of 5 mL/second. Image analysis included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements in lung arteries and veins, as well as a subjective analysis of image quality. RESULTS: In patients, significantly higher SNR and CNR were observed with Gd-DTPA compared to both doses of gadobutrol (SNR: 35-42 vs.17-25; CNR 33-39 vs. 16-23; P < or = 0.05). No relevant differences were observed between 0.1 mmol/kg bw and 0.2 mmol/kg bw gadobutrol. In volunteers, gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA achieved similar SNR and CNR. A significantly higher SNR and CNR was observed for gadobutrol-enhanced MRA with an increased flip angle of 40 degrees. Image quality was rated equal for both contrast agents. CONCLUSION: No relevant advantages of 1.0 M gadobutrol over 0.5 M Gd-DTPA were observed for time-resolved pulmonary MRA in this study. Potential explanations are T2/T2*-effects caused by the high intravascular concentration when using high injection rates. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: H Raoult; J-C Ferré; X Morandi; B Carsin-Nicol; M Carsin; M Cuggia; M Law; J-Y Gauvrit Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Philip Hoelter; Stefan Lang; Marina Weibart; Manuel Schmidt; Michael F X Knott; Tobias Engelhorn; Marco Essig; Stephan Kloska; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Achim Seeger; Ulrich Kramer; Michael Fenchel; Florian Grimm; Christiane Bretschneider; Jörg Döring; Bernhard Klumpp; Gunnar Tepe; Kilian Rittig; Peter R Seidensticker; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Miller Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2008-12-30 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Jan Hansmann; Henrik J Michaely; John N Morelli; André Luckscheiter; Stefan O Schoenberg; Ulrike I Attenberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240