PURPOSE: To use the contrast agent gadofosveset for absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion and compare it with gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) using a high-resolution generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were examined twice at two different dates with a first-pass perfusion examination at rest using prebolus technique. We used a 1.5 T scanner and a 32 channel heart-array coil with a steady-state free precession (SSFP) true fast imaging with steady state precession (trueFISP) GRAPPA sequence (acceleration-factor 3). Manual delineation of the myocardial contours was performed and absolute quantification was performed after baseline and contamination correction. At the first appointment, 1cc/4cc of the extracellular contrast agent Gd-BOPTA were administered, on the second date, 1cc/4cc of the blood pool contrast agent (CA) gadofosveset. At each date the examination was repeated after a 15-minute time interval. RESULTS: Using gadofosveset perfusion the value (in cc/g/min) at rest was 0.66 ± 0.25 (mean ± standard deviation) for the first, and 0.55 ± 0.24 for the second CA application; for Gd-BOPTA it was 0.62 ± 0.25 and 0.45 ± 0.23. No significant difference was found between the acquired perfusion values. The apparent mean residence time in the myocardium was 23 seconds for gadofosveset and 19.5 seconds for Gd-BOPTA. Neither signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) nor subjectively rated image contrast showed a significant difference. CONCLUSION: The application of gadofosveset for an absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion is possible. Yet the acquired perfusion values show no significant differences to those determined with Gd-BOPTA, maintained the same SNR and comparable perfusion values, and did not picture the expected concentration time-course for an intravasal CA in the first pass.
PURPOSE: To use the contrast agent gadofosveset for absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion and compare it with gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) using a high-resolution generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were examined twice at two different dates with a first-pass perfusion examination at rest using prebolus technique. We used a 1.5 T scanner and a 32 channel heart-array coil with a steady-state free precession (SSFP) true fast imaging with steady state precession (trueFISP) GRAPPA sequence (acceleration-factor 3). Manual delineation of the myocardial contours was performed and absolute quantification was performed after baseline and contamination correction. At the first appointment, 1cc/4cc of the extracellular contrast agent Gd-BOPTA were administered, on the second date, 1cc/4cc of the blood pool contrast agent (CA) gadofosveset. At each date the examination was repeated after a 15-minute time interval. RESULTS: Using gadofosveset perfusion the value (in cc/g/min) at rest was 0.66 ± 0.25 (mean ± standard deviation) for the first, and 0.55 ± 0.24 for the second CA application; for Gd-BOPTA it was 0.62 ± 0.25 and 0.45 ± 0.23. No significant difference was found between the acquired perfusion values. The apparent mean residence time in the myocardium was 23 seconds for gadofosveset and 19.5 seconds for Gd-BOPTA. Neither signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) nor subjectively rated image contrast showed a significant difference. CONCLUSION: The application of gadofosveset for an absolute quantification of myocardial perfusion is possible. Yet the acquired perfusion values show no significant differences to those determined with Gd-BOPTA, maintained the same SNR and comparable perfusion values, and did not picture the expected concentration time-course for an intravasal CA in the first pass.
Authors: Sebastian Niedermayer; Steven Sourbron; Maria Prompona; Clemens Cyran; Maximilian Reiser; Armin Huber Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Octavia Bane; Daniel C Lee; Brandon C Benefield; Kathleen R Harris; Neil R Chatterjee; James C Carr; Timothy J Carroll Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Marcus R Makowski; Andrea J Wiethoff; Hans U Ebersberger; René M Botnar; Reza Razavi; Tobias Schaeffter; Gerald F Greil Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: G Paul Camren; Gregory J Wilson; Vikram R Bamra; Khahn Q Nguyen; Daniel S Hippe; Jeffrey H Maki Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-06-29 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Marcus R Makowski; Andrea J Wiethoff; Christian H P Jansen; Sergio Uribe; Victoria Parish; Andreas Schuster; Rene M Botnar; Aaron Bell; Christoph Kiesewetter; Reza Razavi; Tobias Schaeffter; Gerald F Greil Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Owen C Richardson; Octavia Bane; Marietta L J Scott; Steven F Tanner; John C Waterton; Steven P Sourbron; Timothy J Carroll; David L Buckley Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 4.668