OBJECTIVE: This prospective multicenter intraindividual crossover study was designed to compare gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium at approved doses with respect to the image quality and diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) in the detection of clinically relevant renal artery stenosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine subjects (17 men, 22 women; age range, 30-86 years; mean 62 +/- 13.3 [SD] years) with known or suspected renovascular disease underwent a first CE-MRA examination with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine and a second examination 3-12 days later with 0.03 mmol/kg gadofosveset. Identical T1-weighted spoiled gradient-refocused echo coronal first-pass images were acquired for 38 of the 39 patients. For 15 of the 38 patients, additional sagittal or axial images or both were acquired with gadofosveset during the steady-state phase. Thirty-four patients underwent digital subtraction angiography, which was the reference standard. Three independent blinded readers assessed source images and maximum-intensity-projection reconstructions to detect clinically relevant (> 50%) renal artery stenosis. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values) was evaluated with the McNemar and Wald tests. Matched-pair determinations of diagnostic preference were evaluated with Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Reader agreement was determined with kappa analysis, and safety was assessed. RESULTS: Comparison of first-pass images revealed superior sensitivity (75.7-86.5% vs 68.4-76.3%), specificity (92.1-98.6% vs 90.5-93.9%), accuracy (88.9-96.2% vs 85.9-90.3%), positive predictive value (70.0-94.1% vs 65.0-76.3%), and negative predictive value (94.0-96.6% vs 91.7-93.9%) with gadobenate dimeglumine. Significant superiority was noted for specificity (p < or = 0.02), accuracy (p < or = 0.005), and positive predictive value (p < or = 0.018). Steady-state images showed no benefit of gadofosveset. Reader agreement was good to excellent (gadobenate dimeglumine, kappa = 0.855; gadofosveset, kappa = 0.776). Reader preference was for gadobenate dimeglumine in 11, 17, and 13 patients and for gadofosveset in five, four, and five patients. No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSION: Better diagnostic performance and reader preference were found for gadobenate dimeglumine than gadofosveset in first-pass renal CE-MRA.
OBJECTIVE: This prospective multicenter intraindividual crossover study was designed to compare gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium at approved doses with respect to the image quality and diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) in the detection of clinically relevant renal artery stenosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine subjects (17 men, 22 women; age range, 30-86 years; mean 62 +/- 13.3 [SD] years) with known or suspected renovascular disease underwent a first CE-MRA examination with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine and a second examination 3-12 days later with 0.03 mmol/kg gadofosveset. Identical T1-weighted spoiled gradient-refocused echo coronal first-pass images were acquired for 38 of the 39 patients. For 15 of the 38 patients, additional sagittal or axial images or both were acquired with gadofosveset during the steady-state phase. Thirty-four patients underwent digital subtraction angiography, which was the reference standard. Three independent blinded readers assessed source images and maximum-intensity-projection reconstructions to detect clinically relevant (> 50%) renal artery stenosis. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values) was evaluated with the McNemar and Wald tests. Matched-pair determinations of diagnostic preference were evaluated with Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Reader agreement was determined with kappa analysis, and safety was assessed. RESULTS: Comparison of first-pass images revealed superior sensitivity (75.7-86.5% vs 68.4-76.3%), specificity (92.1-98.6% vs 90.5-93.9%), accuracy (88.9-96.2% vs 85.9-90.3%), positive predictive value (70.0-94.1% vs 65.0-76.3%), and negative predictive value (94.0-96.6% vs 91.7-93.9%) with gadobenate dimeglumine. Significant superiority was noted for specificity (p < or = 0.02), accuracy (p < or = 0.005), and positive predictive value (p < or = 0.018). Steady-state images showed no benefit of gadofosveset. Reader agreement was good to excellent (gadobenate dimeglumine, kappa = 0.855; gadofosveset, kappa = 0.776). Reader preference was for gadobenate dimeglumine in 11, 17, and 13 patients and for gadofosveset in five, four, and five patients. No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSION: Better diagnostic performance and reader preference were found for gadobenate dimeglumine than gadofosveset in first-pass renal CE-MRA.
Authors: J L Becker; V Patel; K J Johnson; M Guerrero; R R Klein; G F Ranvier; R P Owen; P Pawha; K Nael Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Z Seidl; J Vymazal; M Mechl; M Goyal; M Herman; C Colosimo; M Pasowicz; R Yeung; B Paraniak-Gieszczyk; B Yemen; N Anzalone; A Citterio; G Schneider; S Bastianello; J Ruscalleda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.825