PURPOSE: To investigate the dependence of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaque on the use of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen subjects with carotid atherosclerotic plaque were imaged with 0.1 mmol/kg of each agent. For arteries with interpretable images, the areas of the lumen, wall, and necrotic core and overlying fibrous cap (when present) were measured, as were the percent enhancement and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). A kinetic model was applied to dynamic imaging results to determine the fractional plasma volume, v(p), and contrast agent transfer constant, K(trans). RESULTS: For 12 subjects with interpretable images, the agent used did not significantly impact any area measurements or the presence or absence of necrotic core (P > 0.1 for all). However, the percent enhancement was greater for the fibrous cap (72% vs. 54%; P < 0.05) necrotic core (51% vs. 42%; P = 0.12), and lumen (42% vs. 63%; P < 0.05) when using gadobenate dimeglumine, although no apparent difference in CNR was found. Additionally, K(trans) was lower when using gadobenate dimeglumine (0.0846 min(-1) vs. 0.101 min(-1); P < 0.01), although v(p) showed no difference (9.5% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Plaque morphology measurements are similar with either contrast agent, but quantitative enhancement characteristics, such as percent enhancement and K(trans), differ. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To investigate the dependence of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaque on the use of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen subjects with carotid atherosclerotic plaque were imaged with 0.1 mmol/kg of each agent. For arteries with interpretable images, the areas of the lumen, wall, and necrotic core and overlying fibrous cap (when present) were measured, as were the percent enhancement and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). A kinetic model was applied to dynamic imaging results to determine the fractional plasma volume, v(p), and contrast agent transfer constant, K(trans). RESULTS: For 12 subjects with interpretable images, the agent used did not significantly impact any area measurements or the presence or absence of necrotic core (P > 0.1 for all). However, the percent enhancement was greater for the fibrous cap (72% vs. 54%; P < 0.05) necrotic core (51% vs. 42%; P = 0.12), and lumen (42% vs. 63%; P < 0.05) when using gadobenate dimeglumine, although no apparent difference in CNR was found. Additionally, K(trans) was lower when using gadobenate dimeglumine (0.0846 min(-1) vs. 0.101 min(-1); P < 0.01), although v(p) showed no difference (9.5% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Plaque morphology measurements are similar with either contrast agent, but quantitative enhancement characteristics, such as percent enhancement and K(trans), differ. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: T Saam; M S Ferguson; V L Yarnykh; N Takaya; D Xu; N L Polissar; T S Hatsukami; C Yuan Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2004-11-04 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Bruce A Wasserman; Suzette G Casal; Brad C Astor; Anthony H Aletras; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T Saam; J M Cai; Y Q Cai; N Y An; A Kampschulte; D Xu; W S Kerwin; N Takaya; N L Polissar; T S Hatsukami; C Yuan Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2005-01-13 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Chun Yuan; William S Kerwin; Marina S Ferguson; Nayak Polissar; Shaoxiong Zhang; Jianming Cai; Thomas S Hatsukami Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M J McCarthy; I M Loftus; M M Thompson; L Jones; N J London; P R Bell; A R Naylor; N P Brindle Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Bruce A Wasserman; William I Smith; Hugh H Trout; Richard O Cannon; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: William Kerwin; Andrew Hooker; Mary Spilker; Paolo Vicini; Marina Ferguson; Thomas Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jason Mendes; Dennis L Parker; Scott McNally; Ed DiBella; Bradley D Bolster; Gerald S Treiman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Umar Sadat; Farouc A Jaffer; Marc A M J van Zandvoort; Stephen J Nicholls; Domenico Ribatti; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Geneviève A J C Crombag; Floris H B M Schreuder; Raf H M van Hoof; Martine T B Truijman; Nicky J A Wijnen; Stefan A Vöö; Patty J Nelemans; Sylvia Heeneman; Paul J Nederkoorn; Jan-Willem H Daemen; Mat J A P Daemen; Werner H Mess; J E Wildberger; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; M Eline Kooi Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Tanya N Turan; Todd LeMatty; Renee Martin; Marc I Chimowitz; Zoran Rumboldt; M Vittoria Spampinato; Seth Stalcup; Robert J Adams; Truman Brown Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Maaz Bj Syed; Alexander J Fletcher; Rachael O Forsythe; Jakub Kaczynski; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck; Edwin Jr van Beek Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 3.039