PURPOSE: To prospectively compare single dose gadobenate dimeglumine with double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for CE-MRA in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) using an intra-individual crossover study design in which all patients received both contrast agents in otherwise identical CE-MRA examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board and regulatory approval were granted and all patients provided written informed consent. Sixty-eight patients (53M/15F; 62.4 ± 15.7 years) with mild-to-severe PAOD were enrolled for randomized 3-station CE-MRA with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine and 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three blinded readers assessed images for vessel anatomical delineation, disease detection/exclusion, and global preference. Diagnostic performance for detection of ≥51% stenosis was determined for 53 patients who underwent DSA. Noninferiority was assessed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank, McNemar, and Wald tests. Quantitative enhancement was compared. RESULTS: No differences (P ≥ 0.25) were noted for any qualitative parameter at any station. Equivalence was reported in at least 62/64 patients (93.8% 3-reader agreement) for diagnostic preference. Superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported by all readers for diagnostic performance (sensitivity: 80.4-88.0% versus 75.2-85.8%; specificity: 89.8-96.0% versus 88.7-94.8%; accuracy: 87.4-91.7% versus 84.9-90.6%; PPV: 84.0-92.8% versus 82.3-90.8%; NPV: 88.5-92.4% versus 85.7-91.1%). Quantitative enhancement was similar in the pelvis but significantly (P < 0.05) greater with gadobenate dimeglumine in the thigh for two readers. CONCLUSION:Image quality and diagnostic performance on peripheral CE-MRA with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine is at least equivalent to that with 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare single dose gadobenate dimeglumine with double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for CE-MRA in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) using an intra-individual crossover study design in which all patients received both contrast agents in otherwise identical CE-MRA examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board and regulatory approval were granted and all patients provided written informed consent. Sixty-eight patients (53M/15F; 62.4 ± 15.7 years) with mild-to-severe PAOD were enrolled for randomized 3-station CE-MRA with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine and 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three blinded readers assessed images for vessel anatomical delineation, disease detection/exclusion, and global preference. Diagnostic performance for detection of ≥51% stenosis was determined for 53 patients who underwent DSA. Noninferiority was assessed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank, McNemar, and Wald tests. Quantitative enhancement was compared. RESULTS: No differences (P ≥ 0.25) were noted for any qualitative parameter at any station. Equivalence was reported in at least 62/64 patients (93.8% 3-reader agreement) for diagnostic preference. Superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported by all readers for diagnostic performance (sensitivity: 80.4-88.0% versus 75.2-85.8%; specificity: 89.8-96.0% versus 88.7-94.8%; accuracy: 87.4-91.7% versus 84.9-90.6%; PPV: 84.0-92.8% versus 82.3-90.8%; NPV: 88.5-92.4% versus 85.7-91.1%). Quantitative enhancement was similar in the pelvis but significantly (P < 0.05) greater with gadobenate dimeglumine in the thigh for two readers. CONCLUSION: Image quality and diagnostic performance on peripheral CE-MRA with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine is at least equivalent to that with 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.
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: Carsten W K P Arnoldussen; Pascale Notten; Rutger Brans; Dammis Vroegindeweij; Lidwine W Tick; Marlène H W van de Poel; Otmar R M Wikkeling; Louis-Jean Vleming; Ad Koster; Kon-Siong G Jie; Esther M G Jacobs; Nils Planken; Cees H A Wittens; Hugo Ten Cate; Joachim E Wildberger; Arina J Ten Cate-Hoek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 7.034
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
Authors: Carsten W K P Arnoldussen; Yeelai Lam; Nobutake Ito; Bjorn Winkens; M Eline Kooi; Cees H A Wittens; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315