BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Gadobenate dimeglumine has markedly higher R1 relaxivity compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine meaning that lower doses can be used to achieve similar contrast enhancement. Our aim was to prospectively compare single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced MRA of the supra-aortic vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty-six patients (37 men, 9 women; mean age, 63.5±10.1 years) with known or suspected steno-occlusive disease of the supra-aortic vessels underwent 2 identical CE-MRA examinations at 1.5T. Contrast agents were administered in randomized order, with the 2-fold greater volume of gadopentetate dimeglumine injected at a 2 times faster rate. Image assessment was performed by 3 independent blinded readers for vessel anatomic delineation, detection/exclusion of pathology, and global preference. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV) for detection of ≥60% stenosis was determined for 39/46 patients who underwent preinterventional DSA. Data were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar, and Wald tests in terms of the noninferiority of single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine compared with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Quantitative enhancement (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)) was also compared. RESULTS: All images were technically adequate. No differences (P=1.0) were noted by any reader for any qualitative parameter. All readers considered single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine equivalent in at least 42/46 patients (91.3% three-reader agreement) for all parameters. Nonsignificant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported for all diagnostic performance indicators (sensitivity: 82.7%-88.5% versus 75.0%-80.8%; specificity: 96.4%-98.6% versus 94.6%-98.6%; accuracy: 94.6%-96.1% versus 92.4%-94.9%; PPV: 81.5%-91.5% versus 73.7%-90.7%; NPV: 96.8%-97.8% versus 95.4%-96.4%). No differences (P>.05) in quantitative enhancement were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The image quality and diagnostic performance achieved with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine is at least equivalent to that achieved with 0.2-mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Gadobenate dimeglumine has markedly higher R1 relaxivity compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine meaning that lower doses can be used to achieve similar contrast enhancement. Our aim was to prospectively compare single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced MRA of the supra-aortic vasculature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients (37 men, 9 women; mean age, 63.5±10.1 years) with known or suspected steno-occlusive disease of the supra-aortic vessels underwent 2 identical CE-MRA examinations at 1.5T. Contrast agents were administered in randomized order, with the 2-fold greater volume of gadopentetate dimeglumine injected at a 2 times faster rate. Image assessment was performed by 3 independent blinded readers for vessel anatomic delineation, detection/exclusion of pathology, and global preference. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV) for detection of ≥60% stenosis was determined for 39/46 patients who underwent preinterventional DSA. Data were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar, and Wald tests in terms of the noninferiority of single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine compared with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Quantitative enhancement (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)) was also compared. RESULTS: All images were technically adequate. No differences (P=1.0) were noted by any reader for any qualitative parameter. All readers considered single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine equivalent in at least 42/46 patients (91.3% three-reader agreement) for all parameters. Nonsignificant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported for all diagnostic performance indicators (sensitivity: 82.7%-88.5% versus 75.0%-80.8%; specificity: 96.4%-98.6% versus 94.6%-98.6%; accuracy: 94.6%-96.1% versus 92.4%-94.9%; PPV: 81.5%-91.5% versus 73.7%-90.7%; NPV: 96.8%-97.8% versus 95.4%-96.4%). No differences (P>.05) in quantitative enhancement were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The image quality and diagnostic performance achieved with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine is at least equivalent to that achieved with 0.2-mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.
Authors: Suzanne C Gerretsen; Thierry F le Maire; Stephan Miller; Siegfried A Thurnher; Christoph U Herborn; Henrik J Michaely; Harald Kramer; Angelo Vanzulli; Josef Vymazal; Martin N Wasser; Claudio E M Ballarati; Miles A Kirchin; Gianpaolo Pirovano; Tim Leiner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mathias Prokop; Günther Schneider; Angelo Vanzulli; Mathias Goyen; Stefan G Ruehm; Philippe Douek; Massimo Daprà; Gianpaolo Pirovano; Miles A Kirchin; Alberto Spinazzi Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-12-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anderanik Tomasian; Noriko Salamon; Derek G Lohan; Mehdi Jalili; J Pablo Villablanca; J Paul Finn Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H A Rowley; G Scialfa; P-y Gao; J A Maldjian; D Hassell; M J Kuhn; F J Wippold; M Gallucci; B C Bowen; I M Schmalfuss; J Ruscalleda; S Bastianello; C Colosimo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-07-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Z Seidl; J Vymazal; M Mechl; M Goyal; M Herman; C Colosimo; M Pasowicz; R Yeung; B Paraniak-Gieszczyk; B Yemen; N Anzalone; A Citterio; G Schneider; S Bastianello; J Ruscalleda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Doltra; A Skorin; A Hamdan; B Schnackenburg; R Gebker; C Klein; E Nagel; E Fleck; S Kelle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Guenther Schneider; Thorsten Probst; Miles A Kirchin; Jonas Stroeder; Peter Fries; Arno Buecker Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ghazal Mehri-Kakavand; Hadi Hasanzadeh; Rouzbeh Jahanbakhsh; Maryam Abdollahi; Reza Nasr; Ahmad Bitarafan-Rajabi; Majid Jadidi; Amir Darbandi-Azar; Alireza Emadi Journal: Oman Med J Date: 2019-03