PURPOSE: To investigate the blood pool agent gadofosveset trisodium for first-pass, dynamic peripheral contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (pMRA), and compare the results with a conventional gadolinium contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 16 patients were imaged at 1.5T using a prototype peripheral vascular coil with high SENSE acceleration. Five received gadopentetate dimeglumine ( approximately 0.25 mmol/kg), and 11 received gadofosveset trisodium (five standard-dose 0.03 mmol/kg, six high-dose 0.05 mmol/kg). Quantitative contrast-enhancement and qualitative image quality evaluation was compared between agents and doses. RESULTS: High-quality diagnostic images were uniformly obtained. The contrast ratio did not significantly differ between gadopentetate dimeglumine and high-dose gadofosveset trisodium, both of which were greater than standard-dose gadofosveset trisodium. High-dose gadofosveset trisodium was equivalent to gadopentetate dimeglumine in image quality and subjective vessel-to-background ratio, but significantly better for depicting small muscular arteries. Standard-dose gadofosveset trisodium showed equivalent image quality and small artery depiction with a slight but significant decrease in vessel-to-background ratio as compared to gadopentatate dimeglumine. Both gadofosveset trisodium doses trended toward more venous enhancement, but this was not a diagnostic problem. CONCLUSION: First-pass peripheral CE-MRA using gadofosveset trisodium is feasible, yielding image quality comparable to double to triple-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Increasing the gadofosveset trisodium dose to 0.05 mmol/kg yields further improvements.
PURPOSE: To investigate the blood pool agent gadofosveset trisodium for first-pass, dynamic peripheral contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (pMRA), and compare the results with a conventional gadolinium contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 16 patients were imaged at 1.5T using a prototype peripheral vascular coil with high SENSE acceleration. Five received gadopentetate dimeglumine ( approximately 0.25 mmol/kg), and 11 received gadofosveset trisodium (five standard-dose 0.03 mmol/kg, six high-dose 0.05 mmol/kg). Quantitative contrast-enhancement and qualitative image quality evaluation was compared between agents and doses. RESULTS: High-quality diagnostic images were uniformly obtained. The contrast ratio did not significantly differ between gadopentetate dimeglumine and high-dose gadofosveset trisodium, both of which were greater than standard-dose gadofosveset trisodium. High-dose gadofosveset trisodium was equivalent to gadopentetate dimeglumine in image quality and subjective vessel-to-background ratio, but significantly better for depicting small muscular arteries. Standard-dose gadofosveset trisodium showed equivalent image quality and small artery depiction with a slight but significant decrease in vessel-to-background ratio as compared to gadopentatate dimeglumine. Both gadofosveset trisodium doses trended toward more venous enhancement, but this was not a diagnostic problem. CONCLUSION: First-pass peripheral CE-MRA using gadofosveset trisodium is feasible, yielding image quality comparable to double to triple-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Increasing the gadofosveset trisodium dose to 0.05 mmol/kg yields further improvements.
Authors: Christina M Plank; Florian Wolf; Herbert Langenberger; Michael Weber; Dietrich Beitzke; Alfred Stadler; Martin Schillinger; Johannes Lammer; Christian Loewe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Phillip M Young; Petrice M Mostardi; James F Glockner; Terri R Vrtiska; Thanila Macedo; Clifton R Haider; Stephen J Riederer Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Clifton R Haider; Eric A Borisch; Paul T Weavers; Phillip M Young Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Casey P Johnson; Paul T Weavers; Eric A Borisch; Roger C Grimm; Thomas C Hulshizer; Christine C LaPlante; Phillip J Rossman; James F Glockner; Phillip M Young; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Casey P Johnson; Eric A Borisch; James F Glockner; Phillip M Young; Stephen J Riederer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Karolien Jaspers; Bas Versluis; Tim Leiner; Petra Dijkstra; Marlies Oostendorp; Jolanda M van Golde; Mark J Post; Walter H Backes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark A Ahlman; Fabio S Raman; Jianing Pang; Filip Zemrak; Veit Sandfort; Scott R Penzak; Zhaoyang Fan; Songtao Liu; Debiao Li; David A Bluemke Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 2.298