PURPOSE: To prospectively and intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine with 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography of the renal arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was granted by each of three participating centers. The study accorded with international standards for good clinical practice and Declaration of Helsinki and subsequent amendments. Patients gave written informed consent before enrollment. Patients (n = 34) underwent two MR angiographic examinations more than 48 hours but less than 12 days apart. Gadobenate dimeglumine followed by gadopentetate dimeglumine was administered in 18 patients; the order of administration was reversed in 16 patients. A 1.5-T MR imager was used with a phase-encoded three-dimensional spoiled breath-hold pulse sequence. Two blinded independent readers qualitatively assessed randomized subtracted maximum intensity projection images. A three-point scale for diagnostic quality (0, poor; 1a or 1p, moderate; and 2a or 2p, adequate [a and p refer, respectively, to absence and presence of vascular lesions]) was used to score each of nine segments of the abdominal aorta and both renal arteries (possible overall score, 18). Quantitative assessment (vessel signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], vessel-muscle contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) of source images was performed for regions of interest in supra-, juxta-, and infrarenal aorta segments and psoas muscle. Data were tested with analysis of variance for two-period crossover design. Interreader agreement was evaluated with Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS: No difference in mean image quality between the two contrast agents was observed; scores for gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine were 15.15 and 15.23 for reader 1 and 16.77 and 17.01 for reader 2. The order of contrast material administration likewise produced no quality differences: readers 1 and 2 reported scores of 14.4 +/- 4.2 (standard deviation) and 16.7 +/- 2.3, respectively, when gadobenate dimeglumine was given first, and 15.2 +/- 1.8 and 16.6 +/- 1.6, respectively, when gadopentetate dimeglumine was given first. Results of quantitative evaluation showed increasing SNR and CNR with gadobenate dimeglumine in segments at progressively lower levels of the aorta, but increases in SNR and CNR at the infrarenal aorta (48.3 vs 40.6 and 44.2 vs 36.4, respectively) were not significant (P = .05 for both). CONCLUSION:Gadobenate dimeglumine at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg is comparable to gadopentetate dimeglumine at 0.2 mmol/kg for contrast-enhanced renal MR angiography. (c) RSNA, 2004.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To prospectively and intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine with 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography of the renal arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was granted by each of three participating centers. The study accorded with international standards for good clinical practice and Declaration of Helsinki and subsequent amendments. Patients gave written informed consent before enrollment. Patients (n = 34) underwent two MR angiographic examinations more than 48 hours but less than 12 days apart. Gadobenate dimeglumine followed by gadopentetate dimeglumine was administered in 18 patients; the order of administration was reversed in 16 patients. A 1.5-T MR imager was used with a phase-encoded three-dimensional spoiled breath-hold pulse sequence. Two blinded independent readers qualitatively assessed randomized subtracted maximum intensity projection images. A three-point scale for diagnostic quality (0, poor; 1a or 1p, moderate; and 2a or 2p, adequate [a and p refer, respectively, to absence and presence of vascular lesions]) was used to score each of nine segments of the abdominal aorta and both renal arteries (possible overall score, 18). Quantitative assessment (vessel signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], vessel-muscle contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) of source images was performed for regions of interest in supra-, juxta-, and infrarenal aorta segments and psoas muscle. Data were tested with analysis of variance for two-period crossover design. Interreader agreement was evaluated with Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS: No difference in mean image quality between the two contrast agents was observed; scores for gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine were 15.15 and 15.23 for reader 1 and 16.77 and 17.01 for reader 2. The order of contrast material administration likewise produced no quality differences: readers 1 and 2 reported scores of 14.4 +/- 4.2 (standard deviation) and 16.7 +/- 2.3, respectively, when gadobenate dimeglumine was given first, and 15.2 +/- 1.8 and 16.6 +/- 1.6, respectively, when gadopentetate dimeglumine was given first. Results of quantitative evaluation showed increasing SNR and CNR with gadobenate dimeglumine in segments at progressively lower levels of the aorta, but increases in SNR and CNR at the infrarenal aorta (48.3 vs 40.6 and 44.2 vs 36.4, respectively) were not significant (P = .05 for both). CONCLUSION:Gadobenate dimeglumine at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg is comparable to gadopentetate dimeglumine at 0.2 mmol/kg for contrast-enhanced renal MR angiography. (c) RSNA, 2004.
Authors: Pamela K Woodard; Thomas L Chenevert; H Dirk Sostman; Kathleen A Jablonski; Paul D Stein; Lawrence R Goodman; Frank J Londy; Vamsidhar Narra; Charles A Hales; Russell D Hull; Victor F Tapson; John G Weg Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-02-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Yanjun Li; X Li; D Li; J Lu; X Xing; F Yan; Yuan Li; X Wang; R Iezzi; F De Cobelli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Monravee Tumkosit; Chirapa Puntawangkoon; Tim M Morgan; Hollins P Clark; Craig A Hamilton; William O Ntim; Paige B Clark; W Gregory Hundley Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: N Anzalone; F Scomazzoni; M Cirillo; C Righi; F Simionato; M Cadioli; A Iadanza; M A Kirchin; G Scotti Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 3.825