OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare a macrocyclic 1.0 M contrast agent with a linear ionic 0.5 M contrast agent at equimolar dosage in regard to image quality and number of vessel segments visualized at abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In an intraindividual comparative study, 15 patients (six women, nine men; mean age, 53 +/- 12.1 years; range, 25-72 years) underwent 32 1.5-T whole-body contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiographic examinations performed with parallel imaging technique. At random and in separate sessions, each patient was examined after IV injection of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol and 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three-dimensional data sets were acquired in the arterial, portal venous, and venous phases with identical imaging protocols. Quantitative analysis included contrast measurements of vessels compared with adjacent background tissue (Student's t test). Qualitative analysis was performed independently by two radiologists with regard to visualization of arterial and venous vessel segments and overall image quality (Wilcoxon's test). RESULTS: Visualization of individual vessel segments was rated significantly better after administration of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (p < 0.001). Overall image quality was superior with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol, but the difference was not significant. Vessel-to-background contrast after injection of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol was significantly higher (arterial phase, 0.90, p = 0.02; portal venous phase, 0.78, p = 0.0002; venous phase, 0.74, p = 0.0002) compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (arterial phase, 0.89; portal venous phase, 0.73; venous phase, 0.67). CONCLUSION: At abdominal contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography, depiction of small abdominal vessels was significantly better and vessel-to-tissue contrast significantly higher with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol than with an equimolar dose of 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare a macrocyclic 1.0 M contrast agent with a linear ionic 0.5 M contrast agent at equimolar dosage in regard to image quality and number of vessel segments visualized at abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In an intraindividual comparative study, 15 patients (six women, nine men; mean age, 53 +/- 12.1 years; range, 25-72 years) underwent 32 1.5-T whole-body contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiographic examinations performed with parallel imaging technique. At random and in separate sessions, each patient was examined after IV injection of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol and 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three-dimensional data sets were acquired in the arterial, portal venous, and venous phases with identical imaging protocols. Quantitative analysis included contrast measurements of vessels compared with adjacent background tissue (Student's t test). Qualitative analysis was performed independently by two radiologists with regard to visualization of arterial and venous vessel segments and overall image quality (Wilcoxon's test). RESULTS: Visualization of individual vessel segments was rated significantly better after administration of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (p < 0.001). Overall image quality was superior with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol, but the difference was not significant. Vessel-to-background contrast after injection of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol was significantly higher (arterial phase, 0.90, p = 0.02; portal venous phase, 0.78, p = 0.0002; venous phase, 0.74, p = 0.0002) compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (arterial phase, 0.89; portal venous phase, 0.73; venous phase, 0.67). CONCLUSION: At abdominal contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography, depiction of small abdominal vessels was significantly better and vessel-to-tissue contrast significantly higher with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol than with an equimolar dose of 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine.
Authors: D R Hadizadeh; G M Kukuk; D T Steck; J Gieseke; H Urbach; H J Tschampa; S Greschus; A Kovàcs; M Möhlenbruch; A Bostroem; H H Schild; W A Willinek Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ulrike I Attenberger; John N Morelli; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: M Koenig; G Schulte-Altedorneburg; M Piontek; A Hentsch; P Spangenberg; C Schwenke; A Harders; L Heuser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Voth; U I Attenberger; A Luckscheiter; S Haneder; T Henzler; S O Schoenberg; C Schwenke; H J Michaely Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin R Prince; Hae Giu Lee; Chang-Hee Lee; Sung Won Youn; In Ho Lee; Woong Yoon; Benqiang Yang; Haiping Wang; Jin Wang; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Guo-Shu Huang; Jiing-Feng Lirng; Petra Palkowitsch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.315