Literature DB >> 17367974

Dynamic and delayed contrast enhancement in upper abdominal MRI studies: comparison of gadoxetic acid and gadobutrol.

Jan Zizka1, Ludovít Klzo, Jirí Ferda, Milan Mrklovský, Josef Bukac.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare contrast properties of extracelullar (gadobutrol) and hepatospecific (gadoxetic acid) contrast agents in upper abdominal MRI studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized (0.1 ml/kg) dose of gadobutrol (56 subjects) and gadoxetic acid (51 subjects) was administered intravenously by MRI-compatible injector at 2 ml/s, followed by 20 ml saline flush. MR signal intensity changes (SIC) between precontrast scans and arterial phase, portal venous phase, equilibrium, and delayed scans at 10 and 20 min were measured in abdominal aorta, portal vein, common bile duct, liver, and spleen. Mean SIC values for gadobutrol and gadoxetic acid were compared by a two-sample t-test with p-value <0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: In abdominal aorta, the mean SIC in the arterial phase did not significantly differ between gadobutrol (330%) and gadoxetic acid (295%). In portal vein, the mean SIC in the portal venous phase significantly differed between gadobutrol (267%) and gadoxetic acid (176%). Liver parenchyma enhancement was significantly higher for gadobutrol than for gadoxetic acid in both arterial phase (28 versus 13%) and portal venous phase (81 versus 46%). On the contrary, gadobutrol reached significantly lower mean SIC in the liver on delayed scans at 10 min (47 versus 59%) and 20 min (40 versus 67%), as well as in common bile duct at 10 min (54 versus 133%) and 20 min (57 versus 457%), respectively. In the spleen, mean SIC for gadobutrol was significantly higher at all phases.
CONCLUSION: Gadobutrol showed superior enhancement of upper abdominal structures in the dynamic phases whereas gadoxetic acid showed better enhancement of the hepatobiliary structures on delayed scans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17367974     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  14 in total

1.  Diffusion-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterization of tumor necrosis in an animal model.

Authors:  Josephina A Vossen; Manon Buijs; Jean-Francois H Geschwind; Eleni Liapi; Veronica Prieto Ventura; Kwang Hun Lee; David A Bluemke; Ihab R Kamel
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  The value of contrast-enhanced dynamic and diffusion-weighted MR imaging for distinguishing benign and malignant splenic masses.

Authors:  Seo-Youn Choi; Seong Hyun Kim; Kyung Mi Jang; Tae Wook Kang; Kyoung Doo Song; Ji Yoon Moon; Yoon-Hyeong Choi; Bo Ra Lee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Pretreatment assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: expert consensus statement.

Authors:  Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Elijah Dixon; Eddie K Abdalla; W Scott Helton; Timothy M Pawlik; Bachir Taouli; Antoine Brouquet; Reid B Adams
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonanance Imaging of the Liver (Including Biliary Contrast Agents)-Part 2: Protocols for Liver Magnetic Resonanance Imaging and Characterization of Common Focal Liver Lesions.

Authors:  Andrea Agostini; Moritz F Kircher; Richard K G Do; Alessandra Borgheresi; Serena Monti; Andrea Giovagnoni; Lorenzo Mannelli
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 0.800

5.  Prediction of insufficient hepatic enhancement during the Hepatobiliary phase of Gd-EOB DTPA-enhanced MRI using machine learning classifier and feature selection algorithms.

Authors:  Jieun Byun; Seongkeun Park; Ji Su Ko; Ji Young Woo
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-10-13

6.  Liver perfusion in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI): comparison of enhancement in Gd-BT-DO3A and Gd-EOB-DTPA in normal liver parenchyma.

Authors:  Hanke J Schalkx; Marijn van Stralen; Kenneth Coenegrachts; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Charlotte S van Kessel; Richard van Hillegersberg; Karel J van Erpecum; Helena M Verkooijen; Josien P W Pluim; Wouter B Veldhuis; Maarten S van Leeuwen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging features of hepatic hemangioma compared with enhanced computed tomography.

Authors:  Akihiro Tateyama; Yoshihiko Fukukura; Koji Takumi; Toshikazu Shindo; Yuichi Kumagae; Kiyohisa Kamimura; Masayuki Nakajo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis risk after liver magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetate disodium in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment: results of a prospective, open-label, multicenter study.

Authors:  Thomas Lauenstein; Francisco Ramirez-Garrido; Young Hoon Kim; Sung Eun Rha; Jens Ricke; Sith Phongkitkarun; Joachim Boettcher; Rajan T Gupta; Pornpim Korpraphong; Wiwatana Tanomkiat; Julia Furtner; Peter S Liu; Maren Henry; Jan Endrikat
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Safety and Efficacy of Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Liver MRI in Pediatric Patients Aged >2 Months to <18 Years-Results of a Retrospective, Multicenter Study.

Authors:  James Geller; Mureo Kasahara; Mercedes Martinez; Annarosa Soresina; Fran Kashanian; Jan Endrikat
Journal:  Magn Reson Insights       Date:  2016-07-21

10.  Lesion detection and assessment of extrahepatic findings in abdominal MRI using hepatocyte specific contrast agents--comparison of Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA.

Authors:  Kristina I Ringe; Daniel T Boll; Daniela B Husarik; Mustafa R Bashir; Rajan T Gupta; Elmar M Merkle
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 1.930

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.