Johannes Budjan1, Melissa Ong2, Philipp Riffel2, John N Morelli3, Henrik J Michaely2, Stefan O Schoenberg2, Stefan Haneder2. 1. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. Electronic address: Johannes.Budjan@umm.de. 2. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT)-VIBE is a robust method for abdominal magnetic resonance imaging providing both high spatial and high temporal resolution. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of different gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA) on image quality (IQ) with CDT-VIBE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved, retrospective, inter-individual comparison study, 86 patients scanned at 3T were included. Within 28s, 14 high-resolution 3D datasets were acquired using CDT-VIBE. 37 patients received 0.1mmol/kg gadoterate meglumine, 28 patients 0.1mmol/kg gadobutrol, and 19 patients 0.1mL/kg gadoxetic acid. Two blinded, board-certified radiologists assessed the image quality on a 5 point scale, as well as the number of hepatic arterial dominant (HAD) phases. RESULTS: Regardless of the GBCA utilized, CDT-VIBE resulted in good IQ in terms of best IQ achieved among all 14 datasets (gadobutrol 4.3, gadoterate meglumine 3.9, gadoxetic acid 3.7). With respect to worst IQ, the three groups showed statistically significant differences with gadobutrol receiving the highest rating (3.6) and gadoxetic acid the lowest (2.4) (gadoterate meglumine 3.0; 0.0014<p<0.0485). No statistically significant differences were found in the mean number of acquired HAD phases (gadobutrol 3.4, gadoterate meglumine 3.9, gadoxetic acid 3.1; 0.18<p<0.57). CONCLUSION: Different gadolinium-based contrast agents can be utilized for dynamic liver imaging with CDT-VIBE resulting in good image quality.
PURPOSE:CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT)-VIBE is a robust method for abdominal magnetic resonance imaging providing both high spatial and high temporal resolution. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of different gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA) on image quality (IQ) with CDT-VIBE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved, retrospective, inter-individual comparison study, 86 patients scanned at 3T were included. Within 28s, 14 high-resolution 3D datasets were acquired using CDT-VIBE. 37 patients received 0.1mmol/kg gadoterate meglumine, 28 patients 0.1mmol/kg gadobutrol, and 19 patients 0.1mL/kg gadoxetic acid. Two blinded, board-certified radiologists assessed the image quality on a 5 point scale, as well as the number of hepatic arterial dominant (HAD) phases. RESULTS: Regardless of the GBCA utilized, CDT-VIBE resulted in good IQ in terms of best IQ achieved among all 14 datasets (gadobutrol 4.3, gadoterate meglumine 3.9, gadoxetic acid 3.7). With respect to worst IQ, the three groups showed statistically significant differences with gadobutrol receiving the highest rating (3.6) and gadoxetic acid the lowest (2.4) (gadoterate meglumine 3.0; 0.0014<p<0.0485). No statistically significant differences were found in the mean number of acquired HAD phases (gadobutrol 3.4, gadoterate meglumine 3.9, gadoxetic acid 3.1; 0.18<p<0.57). CONCLUSION: Different gadolinium-based contrast agents can be utilized for dynamic liver imaging with CDT-VIBE resulting in good image quality.
Authors: Anum Aslam; Amita Kamath; Bradley Spieler; Mark Maschiocchi; Carl F Sabottke; Victoria Chernyak; Sara C Lewis Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Andreas Gutzeit; Simon Matoori; Johannes M Froehlich; Constantin von Weymarn; Carolin Reischauer; Orpheus Kolokythas; Matthias Goyen; Klaus Hergan; Matthias Meissnitzer; Rosemarie Forstner; Jan D Soyka; Aleksis Doert; Dow-Mu Koh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ji Hye Min; Young Kon Kim; Tae Wook Kang; Woo Kyoung Jeong; Won Jae Lee; Soohyun Ahn; Na Young Hwang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Eun Young Kim; Hye Sun Hwang; Ho Yun Lee; Jong Ho Cho; Hong Kwan Kim; Kyung Soo Lee; Young Mog Shim; Jaeil Zo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Johannes Budjan; Philipp Riffel; Melissa M Ong; Stefan O Schoenberg; Ulrike I Attenberger; Daniel Hausmann Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Jimi Huh; So Yeon Kim; Benjamin M Yeh; Seung Soo Lee; Kyoung Won Kim; En-Haw Wu; Z Jane Wang; Li-qin Zhao; Wei Chou Chang Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 3.500