PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients on dialysis administered either a lower dose high-relaxivity linear gadolinium-chelate, gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance, MH), compared to a standard dose linear gadolinium chelate, gadodiamide (Omniscan, OM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved. As per institution standardized contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols, patients on dialysis were imaged using either MH, between 2/2007 to 9/2008, or OM between 10/2003 and 1/2007. Rates of NSF were compared using 95% score-based confidence intervals (CI). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test similarity/difference between contrast doses given to each patient group. RESULTS: Overall, 312 patients on dialysis received OM and eight (2.6%) developed NSF (95% CI: 1.30%-4.98%). In all, 784 patients on dialysis received MH at a mean cumulative dose of 0.11 mmol/kg (0.05-0.75 mmol/kg) and no cases of NSF were identified (upper 95% confidence bound of 0.45%). The mean cumulative dose of OM was 0.16 mmol/kg (0.1-0.9 mmol/kg) for all patients and 0.28 mmol/kg (0.1-0.8 mmol/kg) for the patients with NSF. The median OM dose was greater in patients who developed NSF (P = 0.03), and was greater than the median MH dose (P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: NSF incidence in at-risk patients receiving contrast-enhanced MRI can be reduced after changing contrast administration protocols that includes changing the type and dose of contrast agent.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients on dialysis administered either a lower dose high-relaxivity linear gadolinium-chelate, gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance, MH), compared to a standard dose linear gadolinium chelate, gadodiamide (Omniscan, OM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved. As per institution standardized contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols, patients on dialysis were imaged using either MH, between 2/2007 to 9/2008, or OM between 10/2003 and 1/2007. Rates of NSF were compared using 95% score-based confidence intervals (CI). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test similarity/difference between contrast doses given to each patient group. RESULTS: Overall, 312 patients on dialysis received OM and eight (2.6%) developed NSF (95% CI: 1.30%-4.98%). In all, 784 patients on dialysis received MH at a mean cumulative dose of 0.11 mmol/kg (0.05-0.75 mmol/kg) and no cases of NSF were identified (upper 95% confidence bound of 0.45%). The mean cumulative dose of OM was 0.16 mmol/kg (0.1-0.9 mmol/kg) for all patients and 0.28 mmol/kg (0.1-0.8 mmol/kg) for the patients with NSF. The median OM dose was greater in patients who developed NSF (P = 0.03), and was greater than the median MH dose (P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: NSF incidence in at-risk patients receiving contrast-enhanced MRI can be reduced after changing contrast administration protocols that includes changing the type and dose of contrast agent.
Authors: P Tirone; M Castano; P Cipolla; V Frigeni; A La Noce; F Luzzani; R Valenti; C de Haën Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Martin R Prince; Honglei Zhang; Michael Morris; Jennifer L MacGregor; Marc E Grossman; Jeffrey Silberzweig; Robert L DeLapaz; Henry J Lee; Cynthia M Magro; Anthony M Valeri Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Derek G Lohan; Anderanik Tomasian; Roya S Saleh; Aparna Singhal; Mayil S Krishnam; J Paul Finn Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Colleen M Costelloe; William A Murphy; Tamara M Haygood; Rajendra Kumar; Kevin W McEnery; R Jason Stafford; Anjali Roy; Roland L Bassett; Robyn K Harrell; John E Madewell Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2010-09-24 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Luis M De León-Rodríguez; André F Martins; Marco C Pinho; Neil M Rofsky; A Dean Sherry Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Joseph Lunyera; Dinushika Mohottige; Anastasia-Stefania Alexopoulos; Hilary Campbell; C Blake Cameron; Nicole Sagalla; Timothy J Amrhein; Matthew J Crowley; Jessica R Dietch; Adelaide M Gordon; Andrzej S Kosinski; Sarah Cantrell; John W Williams; Jennifer M Gierisch; Belinda Ear; Karen M Goldstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Hina Arif-Tiwari; Bobby Kalb; Surya Chundru; Puneet Sharma; James Costello; Rainner W Guessner; Diego R Martin Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Philip Chang; Elise Saddleton; Anne E Laumann; Brenda Schmitz; Dennis P West; Steven M Belknap; Sudharshan Parthasarathy; Beatrice J Edwards; June M McKoy; Frank H Miller Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 3.173