BACKGROUND: A thorough understanding of magnetic resonance (MR) contrast media dynamics makes it possible to choose the optimal contrast media for each investigation. Differences in visualizing hepatobiliary function between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA have previously been demonstrated, but less has been published regarding differences in liver vessel visualization. PURPOSE: To compare the liver vessel and liver parenchymal enhancement dynamics of Gd-BOPTA (MultiHance) and Gd-EOB-DTPA (Primovist). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The signal intensity of the liver parenchyma, the common hepatic artery, the middle hepatic vein, and a segmental branch of the right portal vein was obtained in 10 healthy volunteers before contrast media administration, during arterial and portal venous phases, and 10, 20, 30, 40, and 130 min after intravenous contrast medium injection, but, due to scanner limitations, not during the hepatic venous phase. The doses of contrast media were 0.1 mmol/kg for Gd-BOPTA and 0.025 mmol/kg for Gd-EOB-DTPA. RESULTS: Maximum enhancement of liver parenchyma was observed from the portal venous phase until 130 min after Gd-BOPTA administration and from 10 min to 40 min after Gd-EOB-DTPA. There was no difference in maximum enhancement of liver parenchyma between the two contrast media. When using Gd-BOPTA, the vascular contrast enhancement was still apparent 40 min after injection, but had vanished 10 min after Gd-EOB-DTPA injection. The maximum difference in signal intensity between the vessels and the liver parenchyma was significantly greater with Gd-BOPTA than with Gd-EOB-DTPA (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: At the dosage used in this study, Gd-BOPTA yields higher maximum enhancement of the hepatic artery, portal vein, and middle hepatic vein during the arterial and the portal venous phase and during the delayed phases than Gd-EOB-DTPA does, whereas there is no difference in liver parenchymal enhancement between the two contrast agents.
BACKGROUND: A thorough understanding of magnetic resonance (MR) contrast media dynamics makes it possible to choose the optimal contrast media for each investigation. Differences in visualizing hepatobiliary function between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA have previously been demonstrated, but less has been published regarding differences in liver vessel visualization. PURPOSE: To compare the liver vessel and liver parenchymal enhancement dynamics of Gd-BOPTA (MultiHance) and Gd-EOB-DTPA (Primovist). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The signal intensity of the liver parenchyma, the common hepatic artery, the middle hepatic vein, and a segmental branch of the right portal vein was obtained in 10 healthy volunteers before contrast media administration, during arterial and portal venous phases, and 10, 20, 30, 40, and 130 min after intravenous contrast medium injection, but, due to scanner limitations, not during the hepatic venous phase. The doses of contrast media were 0.1 mmol/kg for Gd-BOPTA and 0.025 mmol/kg for Gd-EOB-DTPA. RESULTS: Maximum enhancement of liver parenchyma was observed from the portal venous phase until 130 min after Gd-BOPTA administration and from 10 min to 40 min after Gd-EOB-DTPA. There was no difference in maximum enhancement of liver parenchyma between the two contrast media. When using Gd-BOPTA, the vascular contrast enhancement was still apparent 40 min after injection, but had vanished 10 min after Gd-EOB-DTPA injection. The maximum difference in signal intensity between the vessels and the liver parenchyma was significantly greater with Gd-BOPTA than with Gd-EOB-DTPA (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: At the dosage used in this study, Gd-BOPTA yields higher maximum enhancement of the hepatic artery, portal vein, and middle hepatic vein during the arterial and the portal venous phase and during the delayed phases than Gd-EOB-DTPA does, whereas there is no difference in liver parenchymal enhancement between the two contrast agents.
Authors: Scott K Nagle; Reed F Busse; Anja C Brau; Jean H Brittain; Alex Frydrychowicz; Yuji Iwadate; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Scott K Nagle; Sharon L D'Souza; Karl K Vigen; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.813
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
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
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Meghan G Lubner; Jeffrey J Brown; Elmar M Merkle; Scott K Nagle; Neil M Rofsky; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.813