PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was the intraindividual comparison of a 1.0 M and two 0.5 M gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) using equimolar dosing in dynamic and static magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the supra-aortic vessels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved study, a total of 20 healthy volunteers (mean ± SD age, 29 ± 6 years) underwent 3 consecutive supra-aortic MRA examinations on a 3.0 T magnetic resonance system. The order of GBCA (Gadobutrol, Gadobenate dimeglumine, and Gadoterate meglumine) was randomized with a minimum interval of 48 hours between the examinations. Before each examination and 45 minutes after each examination, circulatory parameters were recorded. Total GBCA dose per MRA examination was 0.1 mmol/kg with a 0.03 mmol/kg and 0.07 mmol/kg split for dynamic and static MRA, respectively, injected at a rate of 2 mL/s. Two blinded readers qualitatively assessed static MRA data sets independently using pairwise rankings (superior, inferior, and equal). In addition, quantitative analysis was performed with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation as well as vessel sharpness analysis of static MRA using an in-house-developed semiautomated tool. Dynamic MRA was evaluated for maximal SNR. Statistical analysis was performed using the Cohen κ, the Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and mixed effects models. RESULTS: No significant differences of hemodynamic parameters were observed. In static MRA, Gadobutrol was rated superior to Gadoterate meglumine (P < 0.05) and equal to Gadobenate dimeglumine (P = 0.06) with good to excellent reader agreement (κ, 0.66-0.83). In static MRA, SNR was significantly higher using 1.0 M Gadobutrol as compared with either 0.5 M agent (P < 0.05 and P < 0.05) and CNR was significantly higher as compared with Gadoterate meglumine (P < 0.05), whereas CNR values of Gadobutrol data sets were not significantly different as compared with Gadobenate dimeglumine (P = 0.13). Differences in CNR between Gadobenate dimeglumine and Gadoterate meglumine were not significant (P = 0.78). Differences in vessel sharpness between the different GBCAs were also not significant (P > 0.05). Maximal SNR in dynamic MRA using Gadobutrol was significantly higher than both comparators at the level of the proximal and distal internal carotid artery (P < 0.05 and P < 0.05; P < 0.05 and P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At equimolar doses, 1.0 M Gadobutrol demonstrates higher SNR/CNR than do Gadobenate dimeglumine and Gadoterate meglumine, with superior image quality as compared with Gadoterate meglumine for dynamic and static carotid MRA. Despite the shortened bolus with Gadobutrol, no blurring of vessel edges was observed.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was the intraindividual comparison of a 1.0 M and two 0.5 M gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) using equimolar dosing in dynamic and static magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the supra-aortic vessels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved study, a total of 20 healthy volunteers (mean ± SD age, 29 ± 6 years) underwent 3 consecutive supra-aortic MRA examinations on a 3.0 T magnetic resonance system. The order of GBCA (Gadobutrol, Gadobenate dimeglumine, and Gadoterate meglumine) was randomized with a minimum interval of 48 hours between the examinations. Before each examination and 45 minutes after each examination, circulatory parameters were recorded. Total GBCA dose per MRA examination was 0.1 mmol/kg with a 0.03 mmol/kg and 0.07 mmol/kg split for dynamic and static MRA, respectively, injected at a rate of 2 mL/s. Two blinded readers qualitatively assessed static MRA data sets independently using pairwise rankings (superior, inferior, and equal). In addition, quantitative analysis was performed with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation as well as vessel sharpness analysis of static MRA using an in-house-developed semiautomated tool. Dynamic MRA was evaluated for maximal SNR. Statistical analysis was performed using the Cohen κ, the Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and mixed effects models. RESULTS: No significant differences of hemodynamic parameters were observed. In static MRA, Gadobutrol was rated superior to Gadoterate meglumine (P < 0.05) and equal to Gadobenate dimeglumine (P = 0.06) with good to excellent reader agreement (κ, 0.66-0.83). In static MRA, SNR was significantly higher using 1.0 M Gadobutrol as compared with either 0.5 M agent (P < 0.05 and P < 0.05) and CNR was significantly higher as compared with Gadoterate meglumine (P < 0.05), whereas CNR values of Gadobutrol data sets were not significantly different as compared with Gadobenate dimeglumine (P = 0.13). Differences in CNR between Gadobenate dimeglumine and Gadoterate meglumine were not significant (P = 0.78). Differences in vessel sharpness between the different GBCAs were also not significant (P > 0.05). Maximal SNR in dynamic MRA using Gadobutrol was significantly higher than both comparators at the level of the proximal and distal internal carotid artery (P < 0.05 and P < 0.05; P < 0.05 and P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At equimolar doses, 1.0 M Gadobutrol demonstrates higher SNR/CNR than do Gadobenate dimeglumine and Gadoterate meglumine, with superior image quality as compared with Gadoterate meglumine for dynamic and static carotid MRA. Despite the shortened bolus with Gadobutrol, no blurring of vessel edges was observed.
Authors: S A Thurnher; A Capelastegui; F H Del Olmo; R F Dondelinger; C Gervás; A G Jassoy; P Keto; C Loewe; C N Ludman; L Marti-Bonmati; M Meusel; J P da Cruz; J P Pruvo; V M Sanjuan; T Vogl Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Paul Finn; Visveshwar Baskaran; James C Carr; Richard M McCarthy; F Scott Pereles; Randall Kroeker; Gerhard A Laub Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin Rohrer; Hans Bauer; Jan Mintorovitch; Martin Requardt; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Nicoletta Anzalone; Francesco Scomazzoni; Renata Castellano; Laura Strada; Claudio Righi; Letterio S Politi; Miles A Kirchin; Roberto Chiesa; Giuseppe Scotti Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Philip Hoelter; Stefan Lang; Marina Weibart; Manuel Schmidt; Michael F X Knott; Tobias Engelhorn; Marco Essig; Stephan Kloska; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Pavol Szomolanyi; Martin Rohrer; Thomas Frenzel; Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann; Gregor Jost; Jan Endrikat; Siegfried Trattnig; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Liam Timms; Tianyi Zhou; Yue Lyu; Ju Qiao; Vishala Mishra; Rita Maria Lahoud; Gayatri Veeramani Jayaraman; Andrew S Allegretti; David Drew; Ravi T Seethamraju; Mukesh Harisinghani; Srinivas Sridhar Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-05