E Amarteifio1, M Essig2, D Böckler3, N Attigah3, L Schuster4, S Demirel5. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba, GA216-820 Sherbrook Street, MB R3T 2N2 Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 3. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, INF 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (dkfz), Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, INF 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: serdar.demirel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prove superiority of blood pool contrast agent gadofosveset over conventional contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine for assessment of stenotic internal carotid artery (ICA). METHODS: Eleven patients with high-grade ICA stenosis (≥75%), confirmed by duplex sonography, underwent MR angiography (MRA) with gadofosveset and gadobenate dimeglumine. RESULTS: Agreement in stenosis grade was reached in 7 of 10 stenotic ICAs. In two ICAs, gadobenate dimeglumine led to underestimation of stenosis grade. There was a significant difference in signal intensity (pre-/post-stenotic segments), showing higher values for gadofosveset (P<0.01; P<0.05). Impression of contrast intensity with gadofosveset was better in 8 ICAs and only in 1 ICA with gadobenate dimeglumine (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography may be superior for assessment of high-grade ICA stenosis compared with gadobenate dimeglumine MR angiography.
OBJECTIVE: To prove superiority of blood pool contrast agent gadofosveset over conventional contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine for assessment of stenotic internal carotid artery (ICA). METHODS: Eleven patients with high-grade ICA stenosis (≥75%), confirmed by duplex sonography, underwent MR angiography (MRA) with gadofosveset and gadobenate dimeglumine. RESULTS: Agreement in stenosis grade was reached in 7 of 10 stenotic ICAs. In two ICAs, gadobenate dimeglumine led to underestimation of stenosis grade. There was a significant difference in signal intensity (pre-/post-stenotic segments), showing higher values for gadofosveset (P<0.01; P<0.05). Impression of contrast intensity with gadofosveset was better in 8 ICAs and only in 1 ICA with gadobenate dimeglumine (P<0.05). CONCLUSION:Gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography may be superior for assessment of high-grade ICA stenosis compared with gadobenate dimeglumine MR angiography.