OBJECTIVES: To compare 0.15 mmol/kg gadobutrol for late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging of chronic myocardial infarction with a relaxivity-adjusted dose of gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA). METHODS: Seventeen patients with suspected chronic myocardial infarction underwent LGE imaging at 1.5 T, acquiring an inversion-recovery-prepared gradient echo sequence 15 min after contrast agent administration. Each patient underwent LGE imaging twice, once after administration of 0.15 mmol/kg gadobutrol (r1 = 5.2 l mmol(-1) s(-1)) and after 0.22 mmol/kg Gd-DOTA (r1 = 3.6 l mmol(-1) s(-1)). Two readers independently determined infarct size and contrast-to-noise ratios of infarcted myocardium to remote myocardium (CNR(remote)) and to the left ventricular lumen (CNR(lumen)). RESULTS: LGE was present in 14 patients. Infarct sizes determined after administration of gadobutrol [23.4 ml; 95 % CI (14.4; 32.5)] and Gd-DOTA [22.1 ml; 95 % CI (13.0; 31.1)] were not statistically different (P = 0.22). The CNR(remote) of LGE in infarcted myocardium on gadobutrol- and Gd-DOTA-enhanced images was 44.1 [95 % CI (31.0; 57.1)] and 45.2 [95 % CI (32.2; 58.3)], respectively (P = 0.73). CNR(lumen) was significantly higher on gadobutrol-enhanced LGE images [12.7; 95 % CI (2.5; 23.0) versus 6.8; 95 % CI (-3.5; 17.0); P = 0.02]. CONCLUSION: At relaxivity-adjusted doses, gadobutrol and Gd-DOTA yielded similar infarct sizes with superior contrast between infarcted myocardium and left ventricular lumen on gadobutrol-enhanced images.
OBJECTIVES: To compare 0.15 mmol/kg gadobutrol for late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging of chronic myocardial infarction with a relaxivity-adjusted dose of gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA). METHODS: Seventeen patients with suspected chronic myocardial infarction underwent LGE imaging at 1.5 T, acquiring an inversion-recovery-prepared gradient echo sequence 15 min after contrast agent administration. Each patient underwent LGE imaging twice, once after administration of 0.15 mmol/kg gadobutrol (r1 = 5.2 l mmol(-1) s(-1)) and after 0.22 mmol/kg Gd-DOTA (r1 = 3.6 l mmol(-1) s(-1)). Two readers independently determined infarct size and contrast-to-noise ratios of infarcted myocardium to remote myocardium (CNR(remote)) and to the left ventricular lumen (CNR(lumen)). RESULTS: LGE was present in 14 patients. Infarct sizes determined after administration of gadobutrol [23.4 ml; 95 % CI (14.4; 32.5)] and Gd-DOTA [22.1 ml; 95 % CI (13.0; 31.1)] were not statistically different (P = 0.22). The CNR(remote) of LGE in infarcted myocardium on gadobutrol- and Gd-DOTA-enhanced images was 44.1 [95 % CI (31.0; 57.1)] and 45.2 [95 % CI (32.2; 58.3)], respectively (P = 0.73). CNR(lumen) was significantly higher on gadobutrol-enhanced LGE images [12.7; 95 % CI (2.5; 23.0) versus 6.8; 95 % CI (-3.5; 17.0); P = 0.02]. CONCLUSION: At relaxivity-adjusted doses, gadobutrol and Gd-DOTA yielded similar infarct sizes with superior contrast between infarcted myocardium and left ventricular lumen on gadobutrol-enhanced images.
Authors: Carsten Meyer; Katharina Strach; Daniel Thomas; Harold Litt; Claas P Nähle; Klaus Tiemann; Ulrich Schwenger; Hans H Schild; Torsten Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; James D Richardson; Rishi Puri; Adam J Nelson; Angela G Bertaso; Karen S L Teo; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert Goetti; Gudrun Feuchtner; Paul Stolzmann; Olivio F Donati; Monika Wieser; André Plass; Thomas Frauenfelder; Sebastian Leschka; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas Schlosser; Peter Hunold; Christoph U Herborn; Heidrun Lehmkuhl; Alexander Lind; Sandra Massing; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A de Roos; A C van Rossum; E van der Wall; S Postema; J Doornbos; N Matheijssen; P R van Dijkman; F C Visser; A E van Voorthuisen Journal: Radiology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constantina Chrysochou; David L Buckley; Paul Dark; Alistair Cowie; Philip A Kalra Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Amir Ali Rahsepar; Ahmadreza Ghasemiesfe; Kenichiro Suwa; Ryan S Dolan; Monda L Shehata; Monica J Korell; Nivedita K Naresh; Michael Markl; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arthur E Stillman; Matthijs Oudkerk; David A Bluemke; Menko Jan de Boer; Jens Bremerich; Ernest V Garcia; Matthias Gutberlet; Pim van der Harst; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Dirkjan Kuijpers; Raymond Y Kwong; Eike Nagel; Stamatios Lerakis; John Oshinski; Jean-François Paul; Riemer H J A Slart; Vinod Thourani; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Moritz Wildgruber; Thomas Stadlbauer; Michael Rasper; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Otto Zelger; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Martin Halle; Ernst J Rummeny; Armin M Huber Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.016