RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg body weight (bw) doses gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA; MultiHance) and gadobutrol (Gd-BT-DO3A; Gadovist) for cerebral perfusion magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 1.5 T. METHODS: Twelve healthy male volunteers enrolled into a randomized intraindividual comparative study underwent 4 perfusion MR imaging examinations with 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg bw doses of each contrast agent. The imaging parameters, slice positioning, and contrast agent application were highly standardized. Quantitative determinations based on signal intensity/time (SI/T) curves at regions of interest (ROI) on the gray and white matter were made of the regional cerebral blood volume and flow (rCBV and rCBF, respectively), the percentage signal drop, and the full width half maximum (FWHM) of the SI/T curve. Qualitative evaluation of the quality of the rCBV and rCBF maps was assessed by an independent offsite blinded reader. RESULTS: A single dose of both agents was sufficient to achieve high-quality, diagnostically valid perfusion maps at 1.5 T, and no significant benefit for one agent over the other was noted for quantitative or qualitative determinations. The susceptibility effect, described by percentage of signal loss (gadobutrol: 29.4% vs gadobenate dimeglumine: 28.3%) and the FWHM (gadobutrol: 6.4 seconds vs gadobenate dimeglumine: 7.0 seconds) were similar for 0.1 mmol/kg bw doses of the 2 agents. Double doses of the 2 agents produced better overall image quality but no clinical benefit over the single-dose examinations. CONCLUSION: Both the 1 molar MR contrast agent gadobutrol and the weak protein-interacting agent gadobenate dimeglumine permit the acquisition of high-quality perfusion maps at doses of 0.1 mmol/kg bw. The susceptibility effect is comparable for both agents and stronger than for conventional MR contrast agents.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg body weight (bw) doses gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA; MultiHance) and gadobutrol (Gd-BT-DO3A; Gadovist) for cerebral perfusion magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 1.5 T. METHODS: Twelve healthy male volunteers enrolled into a randomized intraindividual comparative study underwent 4 perfusion MR imaging examinations with 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg bw doses of each contrast agent. The imaging parameters, slice positioning, and contrast agent application were highly standardized. Quantitative determinations based on signal intensity/time (SI/T) curves at regions of interest (ROI) on the gray and white matter were made of the regional cerebral blood volume and flow (rCBV and rCBF, respectively), the percentage signal drop, and the full width half maximum (FWHM) of the SI/T curve. Qualitative evaluation of the quality of the rCBV and rCBF maps was assessed by an independent offsite blinded reader. RESULTS: A single dose of both agents was sufficient to achieve high-quality, diagnostically valid perfusion maps at 1.5 T, and no significant benefit for one agent over the other was noted for quantitative or qualitative determinations. The susceptibility effect, described by percentage of signal loss (gadobutrol: 29.4% vs gadobenate dimeglumine: 28.3%) and the FWHM (gadobutrol: 6.4 seconds vs gadobenate dimeglumine: 7.0 seconds) were similar for 0.1 mmol/kg bw doses of the 2 agents. Double doses of the 2 agents produced better overall image quality but no clinical benefit over the single-dose examinations. CONCLUSION: Both the 1 molar MR contrast agent gadobutrol and the weak protein-interacting agent gadobenate dimeglumine permit the acquisition of high-quality perfusion maps at doses of 0.1 mmol/kg bw. The susceptibility effect is comparable for both agents and stronger than for conventional MR contrast agents.
Authors: M Essig; N Anzalone; S E Combs; À Dörfler; S-K Lee; P Picozzi; A Rovira; M Weller; M Law Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marco Essig; Mark S Shiroishi; Thanh Binh Nguyen; Marc Saake; James M Provenzale; David Enterline; Nicoletta Anzalone; Arnd Dörfler; Alex Rovira; Max Wintermark; Meng Law Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jens Harald Kramer; Elisabeth Arnoldi; Christopher J François; Andrew L Wentland; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Thomas M Grist Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.016