Julian A Luetkens1, Patrick A Kupczyk1, Jonas Doerner1, Rolf Fimmers2, Winfried A Willinek1, Hans H Schild1, Guido M Kukuk3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Biometry, Informatics, and Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. Guido.Kukuk@ukb.uni-bonn.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the occurrence of respiratory motion artefacts in patients undergoing dynamic liver magnetic resonance (MR) either with gadoxetate disodium or gadobutrol. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty liver MR studies (115 with gadobutrol, 115 with gadoxetate disodium) were analysed. Respiratory motion artefacts on dynamic 3D T1-weighted MR images (pre-contrast, arterial, venous, and late-dynamic phase) were assessed using a five-point rating scale. Severe motion was defined as a score ≥ 4. Mean motion scores were compared with the Mann-Whitney-U-test. The chi-squared-test was used for dichotomous comparisons. RESULTS: Mean motion scores for gadoxetate disodium and gadobutrol showed no relevant differences for each phase of the dynamic contrast series (pre-contrast: 1.85 ± 0.70 vs. 1.88 ± 0.57, arterial: 1.85 ± 0.81 vs. 1.87 ± 0.74, venous: 1.82 ± 0.67 vs. 1.74 ± 0.64, late-dynamic: 1.75 ± 0.62 vs. 1.79 ± 0.63; p = 0.469, 0.557, 0.382 and 0.843, respectively). Severe motion artefacts had a similar incidence using gadoxetate disodium and gadobutrol (11/460 [2.4%] vs. 7/460 [1.5%]; p = 0.341). CONCLUSIONS: Gadoxetate disodium is associated with equivalent motion scores compared to gadobutrol in dynamic liver MRI. In addition, both contrast agents demonstrated a comparable and acceptable rate of severe respiratory motion artefacts. KEY POINTS: • Gadobutrol and gadoxetate disodium showed comparable motion scores in dynamic phase imaging. • The incidence of severe motion artefacts was pronounced in arterial phase imaging. • Adverse respiratory side effects were not recorded in 115 examinations with gadoxetate disodium.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the occurrence of respiratory motion artefacts in patients undergoing dynamic liver magnetic resonance (MR) either with gadoxetate disodium or gadobutrol. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty liver MR studies (115 with gadobutrol, 115 with gadoxetate disodium) were analysed. Respiratory motion artefacts on dynamic 3D T1-weighted MR images (pre-contrast, arterial, venous, and late-dynamic phase) were assessed using a five-point rating scale. Severe motion was defined as a score ≥ 4. Mean motion scores were compared with the Mann-Whitney-U-test. The chi-squared-test was used for dichotomous comparisons. RESULTS: Mean motion scores for gadoxetate disodium and gadobutrol showed no relevant differences for each phase of the dynamic contrast series (pre-contrast: 1.85 ± 0.70 vs. 1.88 ± 0.57, arterial: 1.85 ± 0.81 vs. 1.87 ± 0.74, venous: 1.82 ± 0.67 vs. 1.74 ± 0.64, late-dynamic: 1.75 ± 0.62 vs. 1.79 ± 0.63; p = 0.469, 0.557, 0.382 and 0.843, respectively). Severe motion artefacts had a similar incidence using gadoxetate disodium and gadobutrol (11/460 [2.4%] vs. 7/460 [1.5%]; p = 0.341). CONCLUSIONS:Gadoxetate disodium is associated with equivalent motion scores compared to gadobutrol in dynamic liver MRI. In addition, both contrast agents demonstrated a comparable and acceptable rate of severe respiratory motion artefacts. KEY POINTS: • Gadobutrol and gadoxetate disodium showed comparable motion scores in dynamic phase imaging. • The incidence of severe motion artefacts was pronounced in arterial phase imaging. • Adverse respiratory side effects were not recorded in 115 examinations with gadoxetate disodium.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gadobutrol; Gadoxetate Disodium; Liver; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Motion Artefacts
Authors: Steven S Raman; Christopher Leary; David A Bluemke; Marco Amendola; Dushyant Sahani; Jeffrey D McTavish; Jeffrey Brody; Eric Outwater; Donald Mitchell; Douglas H Sheafor; Jeff Fidler; Isaac R Francis; Richard C Semelka; Kohkan Shamsi; Simone Gschwend; David R Feldman; Josy Breuer Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Mustafa R Bashir; Jason A Pietryga; Joseph T Weber; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Hero K Hussain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; Thomas Balzer; Anthony Blakeborough; Josy Breuer; Andrea Giovagnoni; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Michael Laniado; Riccardo M Manfredi; Didier G Mathieu; Dieter Mueller; Peter Reimer; Philip J Robinson; Michael Strotzer; Matthias Taupitz; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Taylor R McClellan; Utaroh Motosugi; Michael S Middleton; Brian C Allen; Tracy A Jaffe; Chad M Miller; Scott B Reeder; Claude B Sirlin; Mustafa R Bashir Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Luigi Grazioli; Riccardo Faletti; Barbara Frittoli; Giacomo Battisti; Roberta Ambrosini; Laura Romanini; Marco Gatti; Paolo Fonio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Kristina I Ringe; Christian von Falck; Hans-Jürgen Raatschen; Frank Wacker; Jan Hinrichs Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carl Guillaume Glessgen; Hanns-Christian Breit; Tobias Kai Block; Elmar Max Merkle; Tobias Heye; Daniel Tobias Boll Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 5.315