PURPOSE: Gold nanoparticles (gold-NPs) have lately been proposed as alternative contrast agents to iodine-based contrast agents (iodine-CA) for computed tomography (CT) angiography. The aims of this study were to confirm an appropriate environment in which to evaluate such novel contrast agents, to investigate the comparative contrast of iodine-CA versus gold-NP, and to determine optimal scanning parameters for gold-NP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different clinical scanners were used to acquire CT images. A range of concentrations (10 mM to 1.5 M) of gold-NP and iodine-CA were scanned with varying x-ray tube voltages and currents, reconstruction kernels, protocols, and scanner models. The different environments investigated were air, water, and water with a bone simulant (Ca3(PO4)2). Regression coefficients were derived from the attenuation values plotted against concentration and compared for statistical significance using t values. RESULTS: As expected, contrast was linearly related to concentrations up to 500 to 1000 mM, depending on the conditions used, whereupon a plateau of 3000 Hounsfield units was reached. Attenuation was significantly different depending on the environment used (air, water, or water and bone simulant). Contrast is dependent on the x-ray tube voltage used, with the contrast produced from iodine-CA sharply declining with increasing voltage, whereas the contrast of gold-NP varied less with tube voltage but was maximal at 120 kV in water with bone simulant. Current, reconstruction kernels, protocols, and scanner model had less effect on contrast. CONCLUSION: Water with a bone simulant is a preferable environment for evaluating novel cardiac CT contrast agents. Relative iodine-CA versus gold-NP contrast is dependent on the scanning conditions used. Optimal scanning conditions for gold-NP will likely use an x-ray tube voltage of 120 kV.
PURPOSE: Gold nanoparticles (gold-NPs) have lately been proposed as alternative contrast agents to iodine-based contrast agents (iodine-CA) for computed tomography (CT) angiography. The aims of this study were to confirm an appropriate environment in which to evaluate such novel contrast agents, to investigate the comparative contrast of iodine-CA versus gold-NP, and to determine optimal scanning parameters for gold-NP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different clinical scanners were used to acquire CT images. A range of concentrations (10 mM to 1.5 M) of gold-NP and iodine-CA were scanned with varying x-ray tube voltages and currents, reconstruction kernels, protocols, and scanner models. The different environments investigated were air, water, and water with a bone simulant (Ca3(PO4)2). Regression coefficients were derived from the attenuation values plotted against concentration and compared for statistical significance using t values. RESULTS: As expected, contrast was linearly related to concentrations up to 500 to 1000 mM, depending on the conditions used, whereupon a plateau of 3000 Hounsfield units was reached. Attenuation was significantly different depending on the environment used (air, water, or water and bone simulant). Contrast is dependent on the x-ray tube voltage used, with the contrast produced from iodine-CA sharply declining with increasing voltage, whereas the contrast of gold-NP varied less with tube voltage but was maximal at 120 kV in water with bone simulant. Current, reconstruction kernels, protocols, and scanner model had less effect on contrast. CONCLUSION:Water with a bone simulant is a preferable environment for evaluating novel cardiac CT contrast agents. Relative iodine-CA versus gold-NP contrast is dependent on the scanning conditions used. Optimal scanning conditions for gold-NP will likely use an x-ray tube voltage of 120 kV.
Authors: Dipanjan Pan; Ewald Roessl; Jens-Peter Schlomka; Shelton D Caruthers; Angana Senpan; Mike J Scott; John S Allen; Huiying Zhang; Grace Hu; Patrick J Gaffney; Eric T Choi; Volker Rasche; Samuel A Wickline; Roland Proksa; Gregory M Lanza Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Patrick M Winter; Himanshu P Shukla; Shelton D Caruthers; Michael J Scott; Ralph W Fuhrhop; J David Robertson; Patrick J Gaffney; Samuel A Wickline; Gregory M Lanza Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Celeste Aida S Regino; Stuart Walbridge; Marcelino Bernardo; Karen J Wong; Dennis Johnson; Russell Lonser; Edward H Oldfield; Peter L Choyke; Martin W Brechbiel Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Price A Jackson; Wan Nordiana W Abd Rahman; Christopher J Wong; Trevor Ackerly; Moshi Geso Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Nripen Chanda; Vijaya Kattumuri; Ravi Shukla; Ajit Zambre; Kavita Katti; Anandhi Upendran; Rajesh R Kulkarni; Para Kan; Genevieve M Fent; Stan W Casteel; C Jeffrey Smith; Evan Boote; J David Robertson; Cathy Cutler; John R Lever; Kattesh V Katti; Raghuraman Kannan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Melissa L Hill; Ian R Corbin; Ronald B Levitin; Weiguo Cao; James G Mainprize; Martin J Yaffe; Gang Zheng Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: David P Cormode; Ewald Roessl; Axel Thran; Torjus Skajaa; Ronald E Gordon; Jens-Peter Schlomka; Valentin Fuster; Edward A Fisher; Willem J M Mulder; Roland Proksa; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dipanjan Pan; Todd A Williams; Angana Senpan; John S Allen; Mike J Scott; Patrick J Gaffney; Samuel A Wickline; Gregory M Lanza Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Paul F FitzGerald; Robert E Colborn; Peter M Edic; Jack W Lambert; Andrew S Torres; Peter J Bonitatibus; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Taeho Kim; Nohyun Lee; Dian R Arifin; Irina Shats; Miroslaw Janowski; Piotr Walczak; Taeghwan Hyeon; Jeff W M Bulte Journal: Adv Funct Mater Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 18.808
Authors: Aneta J Mieszawska; YongTae Kim; Anita Gianella; Inge van Rooy; Bram Priem; Matthew P Labarre; Canturk Ozcan; David P Cormode; Artiom Petrov; Robert Langer; Omid C Farokhzad; Zahi A Fayad; Willem J M Mulder Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Peter Chhour; Pratap C Naha; Sean M O'Neill; Harold I Litt; Muredach P Reilly; Victor A Ferrari; David P Cormode Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Jessica C Hsu; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Peter Chhour; Renee Hastings; Brianna F Moon; Joel M Stein; Walter R T Witschey; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Salim Si-Mohamed; David P Cormode; Daniel Bar-Ness; Monica Sigovan; Pratap C Naha; Jean-Baptiste Langlois; Lara Chalabreysse; Philippe Coulon; Ira Blevis; Ewald Roessl; Klaus Erhard; Loic Boussel; Philippe Douek Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Pratap C Naha; Ajlan Al Zaki; Elizabeth Hecht; Michael Chorny; Peter Chhour; Eric Blankemeyer; Douglas M Yates; Walter R T Witschey; Harold I Litt; Andrew Tsourkas; David P Cormode Journal: J Mater Chem B Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 6.331