PURPOSE: The purpose was to objectively evaluate a recently FDA-approved gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) in comparison to our standard GBCA for acute adverse events and image quality by blinded evaluation. METHODS: Evaluation was made of a recently FDA-approved GBCA, gadobutrol (Gadavist; Bayer), in comparison to our standard GBCA, gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance; Bracco), in an IRB- and HIPAA-compliant study. Both the imaging technologist and patient were not aware of the brand of the GBCA used. A total of 59 magnetic resonance studies were evaluated (59 patients, 31 men, 28 women, age range of 5-85 years, mean age of 52 years). Twenty-nine studies were performed with gadobutrol (22 abdominal and 7 brain studies), and 30 studies were performed withgadobenate dimeglumine (22 abdominal and 8 brain studies). Assessment was made of acute adverse events focusing on objective observations of vomiting, hives, and moderate and severe reactions. Adequacy of enhancement was rated as poor, fair and good by one of two experienced radiologists who were blinded to the type of agent evaluated. RESULTS: No patient experienced acute adverse events with either agent. The target minor adverse events of vomiting or hives, and moderate and severe reactions were not observed in any patient. Adequacy of enhancement was rated as good for both agents in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Objective, blinded evaluation is feasible and readily performable for the evaluation of GBCAs. This proof-of-concept study showed that both GBCAs evaluated exhibited consistent good image quality and no noteworthy adverse events.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose was to objectively evaluate a recently FDA-approved gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) in comparison to our standard GBCA for acute adverse events and image quality by blinded evaluation. METHODS: Evaluation was made of a recently FDA-approved GBCA, gadobutrol (Gadavist; Bayer), in comparison to our standard GBCA, gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance; Bracco), in an IRB- and HIPAA-compliant study. Both the imaging technologist and patient were not aware of the brand of the GBCA used. A total of 59 magnetic resonance studies were evaluated (59 patients, 31 men, 28 women, age range of 5-85 years, mean age of 52 years). Twenty-nine studies were performed with gadobutrol (22 abdominal and 7 brain studies), and 30 studies were performed with gadobenate dimeglumine (22 abdominal and 8 brain studies). Assessment was made of acute adverse events focusing on objective observations of vomiting, hives, and moderate and severe reactions. Adequacy of enhancement was rated as poor, fair and good by one of two experienced radiologists who were blinded to the type of agent evaluated. RESULTS: No patient experienced acute adverse events with either agent. The target minor adverse events of vomiting or hives, and moderate and severe reactions were not observed in any patient. Adequacy of enhancement was rated as good for both agents in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Objective, blinded evaluation is feasible and readily performable for the evaluation of GBCAs. This proof-of-concept study showed that both GBCAs evaluated exhibited consistent good image quality and no noteworthy adverse events.