PURPOSE: To compare image quality including the number of perforators visualized, vessel contrast ratios, and vessel sharpness with blood pool and extracellular contrast agents in abdominal perforator flap magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative perforator flap MRA was performed prone on 64 consecutive patients undergoing breast reconstruction (32 receiving 20 mL gadobenate dimeglumine and 32 receiving 10 mL gadofosveset trisodium) on transverse 3D fat-suppressed spoiled gradient echo images using high spatial resolution. Image quality was assessed qualitatively on a 4-point scale. On a computer workstation the number of perforators visualized was counted, arterial, venous, muscle, fat, and abdominal perforator signal intensities were measured to calculate signal intensity and contrast ratios, and vessel sharpness was evaluated. RESULTS: The qualitative image quality score was higher for gadofosveset (2.7) than gadobenate (2.0) and CTA (2.0). The mean number of perforators visualized with gadofosveset was 6.8 on right and 10.4 on left compared to 4.6 on right and 6.6 on left for gadobenate (P < 0.0001). The artery-to-fat contrast ratio was comparable, suggesting the difference was not related to magnitude of enhancement. Perforator-to-muscle contrast ratio was greater for gadofosveset, 2.3, compared to gadobenate 1.5 (P = 0.002). Vessel sharpness was also greater for gadofosveset (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Perforator MRA image quality including number of perforators visualized, perforator-to-muscle contrast, and vessel sharpness is higher with gadofosveset trisodium compared with gadobenate dimeglumine.
PURPOSE: To compare image quality including the number of perforators visualized, vessel contrast ratios, and vessel sharpness with blood pool and extracellular contrast agents in abdominal perforator flap magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative perforator flap MRA was performed prone on 64 consecutive patients undergoing breast reconstruction (32 receiving 20 mL gadobenate dimeglumine and 32 receiving 10 mL gadofosveset trisodium) on transverse 3D fat-suppressed spoiled gradient echo images using high spatial resolution. Image quality was assessed qualitatively on a 4-point scale. On a computer workstation the number of perforators visualized was counted, arterial, venous, muscle, fat, and abdominal perforator signal intensities were measured to calculate signal intensity and contrast ratios, and vessel sharpness was evaluated. RESULTS: The qualitative image quality score was higher for gadofosveset (2.7) than gadobenate (2.0) and CTA (2.0). The mean number of perforators visualized with gadofosveset was 6.8 on right and 10.4 on left compared to 4.6 on right and 6.6 on left for gadobenate (P < 0.0001). The artery-to-fat contrast ratio was comparable, suggesting the difference was not related to magnitude of enhancement. Perforator-to-muscle contrast ratio was greater for gadofosveset, 2.3, compared to gadobenate 1.5 (P = 0.002). Vessel sharpness was also greater for gadofosveset (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Perforator MRA image quality including number of perforators visualized, perforator-to-muscle contrast, and vessel sharpness is higher with gadofosveset trisodium compared with gadobenate dimeglumine.