OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the relaxation properties of ferumoxytol, an off-label alternative to gadolinium-based contrast agents, under physiological conditions at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ferumoxytol was diluted in gradually increasing concentrations (0.26-4.2 mM) in saline, human plasma, and human whole blood. Magnetic resonance relaxometry was performed at 37°C at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Longitudinal and transverse relaxation rate constants (R1, R2, R2*) were measured as a function of ferumoxytol concentration, and relaxivities (r1, r2, r2*) were calculated. RESULTS: A linear dependence of R1, R2, and R2* on ferumoxytol concentration was found in saline and plasma with lower R1 values at 3.0 T and similar R2 and R2* values at 1.5 T and 3.0 T (1.5 T: r1saline = 19.9 ± 2.3 smM; r1plasma = 19.0 ± 1.7 smM; r2saline = 60.8 ± 3.8 smM; r2plasma = 64.9 ± 1.8 smM; r2*saline = 60.4 ± 4.7 smM; r2*plasma = 64.4 ± 2.5 smM; 3.0 T: r1saline = 10.0 ± 0.3 smM; r1plasma = 9.5 ± 0.2 smM; r2saline = 62.3 ± 3.7 smM; r2plasma = 65.2 ± 1.8 smM; r2*saline = 57.0 ± 4.7 smM; r2*plasma = 55.7 ± 4.4 smM). The dependence of relaxation rates on concentration in blood was nonlinear. Formulas from second-order polynomial fittings of the relaxation rates were calculated to characterize the relationship between R1blood and R2 blood with ferumoxytol. CONCLUSIONS: Ferumoxytol demonstrates strong longitudinal and transverse relaxivities. Awareness of the nonlinear relaxation behavior of ferumoxytol in blood is important for ferumoxytol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging applications and for protocol optimization.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the relaxation properties of ferumoxytol, an off-label alternative to gadolinium-based contrast agents, under physiological conditions at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ferumoxytol was diluted in gradually increasing concentrations (0.26-4.2 mM) in saline, human plasma, and human whole blood. Magnetic resonance relaxometry was performed at 37°C at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Longitudinal and transverse relaxation rate constants (R1, R2, R2*) were measured as a function of ferumoxytol concentration, and relaxivities (r1, r2, r2*) were calculated. RESULTS: A linear dependence of R1, R2, and R2* on ferumoxytol concentration was found in saline and plasma with lower R1 values at 3.0 T and similar R2 and R2* values at 1.5 T and 3.0 T (1.5 T: r1saline = 19.9 ± 2.3 smM; r1plasma = 19.0 ± 1.7 smM; r2saline = 60.8 ± 3.8 smM; r2plasma = 64.9 ± 1.8 smM; r2*saline = 60.4 ± 4.7 smM; r2*plasma = 64.4 ± 2.5 smM; 3.0 T: r1saline = 10.0 ± 0.3 smM; r1plasma = 9.5 ± 0.2 smM; r2saline = 62.3 ± 3.7 smM; r2plasma = 65.2 ± 1.8 smM; r2*saline = 57.0 ± 4.7 smM; r2*plasma = 55.7 ± 4.4 smM). The dependence of relaxation rates on concentration in blood was nonlinear. Formulas from second-order polynomial fittings of the relaxation rates were calculated to characterize the relationship between R1blood and R2 blood with ferumoxytol. CONCLUSIONS:Ferumoxytol demonstrates strong longitudinal and transverse relaxivities. Awareness of the nonlinear relaxation behavior of ferumoxytol in blood is important for ferumoxytol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging applications and for protocol optimization.
Authors: Gregory J Wilson; Mark Woods; Charles S Springer; Sarah Bastawrous; Puneet Bhargava; Jeffrey H Maki Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Harsh K Agarwal; Joanna Shih; Marcelino Bernardo; Yolanda L McKinney; Dagane Daar; Gary L Griffiths; Sandeep Sankineni; Linda Johnson; Kinzya B Grant; Juanita Weaver; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Mukesh Harisinghani; Paula Jacobs; William Dahut; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Johannes Budjan; Sabine Neudecker; Daniel Schock-Kusch; Bettina Kraenzlin; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely; Ulrike I Attenberger Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: David M Hasan; Nohra Chalouhi; Pascal Jabbour; Vincent A Magnotta; David K Kung; William L Young Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: Bruce S Spinowitz; Annamaria T Kausz; Jovanna Baptista; Sylvia D Noble; Renuka Sothinathan; Marializa V Bernardo; Louis Brenner; Brian J G Pereira Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Adam M Bush; Christopher M Sandino; Shreya Ramachandran; Frank Ong; Nicholas Dwork; Evan J Zucker; Ali B Syed; John M Pauly; Marcus T Alley; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sophie C Queler; Ek Tsoon Tan; Christian Geannette; Martin Prince; Darryl B Sneag Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Sydney M Nguyen; Gregory J Wiepz; Michele Schotzko; Heather A Simmons; Andres Mejia; Kai D Ludwig; Ante Zhu; Kevin Brunner; Diego Hernando; Scott B Reeder; Oliver Wieben; Kevin Johnson; Dinesh Shah; Thaddeus G Golos Journal: Biol Reprod Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 4.285
Authors: Peter J Niedbalski; Alexander S Cochran; Teckla G Akinyi; Robert P Thomen; Elizabeth M Fugate; Diana M Lindquist; Ronald G Pratt; Zackary I Cleveland Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Gesine Knobloch; Scott Nagle; Timothy Colgan; Tilman Schubert; Kevin M Johnson; Peter Bannas; Geng Li; Louis Hinshaw; James Holmes; Scott B Reeder Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-01
Authors: Gesine Knobloch; Timothy Colgan; Mark L Schiebler; Kevin M Johnson; Geng Li; Tilman Schubert; Scott B Reeder; Scott K Nagle Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-06-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yaser Hadi Gholami; Hushan Yuan; Moses Q Wilks; Richard Maschmeyer; Marc D Normandin; Lee Josephson; Georges El Fakhri; Zdenka Kuncic Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2020-02-24