Amir Ali Rahsepar1,2, Ahmadreza Ghasemiesfe3,4, Kenichiro Suwa3, Ryan S Dolan3, Monda L Shehata3, Monica J Korell3, Nivedita K Naresh3, Michael Markl3, Jeremy D Collins3,5, James C Carr3. 1. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. amir.rahsepar@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Yale New Haven Health, Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, CT, USA. amir.rahsepar@northwestern.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Yale New Haven Health, Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, CT, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MR (LGE-CMR) and extracellular volume fraction (ECV-CMR) are widely used to evaluate macroscopic and microscopic myocardial fibrosis. Macrocyclic contrast media are increasingly used off-label for myocardial scar assessment, given the superior safety profile of these agents. We aimed to assess the performance of two macrocyclic contrast agents, gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol, for the evaluation of myocardial scar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty subjects (61 ± 11 years, 67.5% men) who underwent LGE-CMR using gadobutrol were prospectively recruited for a research CMR scan using same-dose gadoterate meglumine (0.2 mmol/kg) at 1.5 T. Myocardial scar quantification was performed using a short-axis phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) Turbo-FLASH and steady-state free precession (SSFP) images. Pre- and post-contrast T1-mapping was employed to assess myocardial ECV. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to check for reliability between the two contrast agents. RESULTS: Using manual thresholding on PSIR Turbo-FLASH images, mean LGE scar percentage (LGE%) was 9.9 ± 9.7% and 9.4 ± 9.7% for gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine, respectively (p > 0.05) (ICC: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-0.99). Using the PSIR SSFP technique and manual thresholding, LGE% averaged 7.5 ± 9.0% and 7.1 ± 8.6% for gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine, respectively (p > 0.05) (ICC: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99). Average ECV with gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine were similar at 28.40 ± 4.88 and 28.46 ± 4.73 (p > 0.05) with a strong correlation (ICC: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-0.99). CONCLUSION: We found LGE- and ECV-CMR values derived from gadoterate meglumine comparable to values derived from gadobutrol. Gadoterate meglumine has a comparable performance to gadobutrol in identifying LGE-derived myocardial scar both qualitatively and quantitatively. KEY POINTS: • Late gadolinium-enhancement cardiac MR (LGE-MR) and extracellular volume (ECV) fraction are widely used to evaluate macroscopic and microscopic myocardial fibrosis. • Macrocyclic contrast media are increasingly used off-label for myocardial scar assessment, given the presumed superior safety profile of these agents. • LGE- and ECV-CMR values derived from gadoterate meglumine are comparable to values derived from gadobutrol.
PURPOSE: Late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MR (LGE-CMR) and extracellular volume fraction (ECV-CMR) are widely used to evaluate macroscopic and microscopic myocardial fibrosis. Macrocyclic contrast media are increasingly used off-label for myocardial scar assessment, given the superior safety profile of these agents. We aimed to assess the performance of two macrocyclic contrast agents, gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol, for the evaluation of myocardial scar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty subjects (61 ± 11 years, 67.5% men) who underwent LGE-CMR using gadobutrol were prospectively recruited for a research CMR scan using same-dose gadoterate meglumine (0.2 mmol/kg) at 1.5 T. Myocardial scar quantification was performed using a short-axis phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) Turbo-FLASH and steady-state free precession (SSFP) images. Pre- and post-contrast T1-mapping was employed to assess myocardial ECV. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to check for reliability between the two contrast agents. RESULTS: Using manual thresholding on PSIR Turbo-FLASH images, mean LGE scar percentage (LGE%) was 9.9 ± 9.7% and 9.4 ± 9.7% for gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine, respectively (p > 0.05) (ICC: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-0.99). Using the PSIR SSFP technique and manual thresholding, LGE% averaged 7.5 ± 9.0% and 7.1 ± 8.6% for gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine, respectively (p > 0.05) (ICC: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99). Average ECV with gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine were similar at 28.40 ± 4.88 and 28.46 ± 4.73 (p > 0.05) with a strong correlation (ICC: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-0.99). CONCLUSION: We found LGE- and ECV-CMR values derived from gadoterate meglumine comparable to values derived from gadobutrol. Gadoterate meglumine has a comparable performance to gadobutrol in identifying LGE-derived myocardial scar both qualitatively and quantitatively. KEY POINTS: • Late gadolinium-enhancement cardiac MR (LGE-MR) and extracellular volume (ECV) fraction are widely used to evaluate macroscopic and microscopic myocardial fibrosis. • Macrocyclic contrast media are increasingly used off-label for myocardial scar assessment, given the presumed superior safety profile of these agents. • LGE- and ECV-CMR values derived from gadoterate meglumine are comparable to values derived from gadobutrol.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast agents; Heart; Magnetic resonance imaging; Scar
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ravi G Assomull; Sanjay K Prasad; Jonathan Lyne; Gillian Smith; Elizabeth D Burman; Mohammed Khan; Mary N Sheppard; Philip A Poole-Wilson; Dudley J Pennell Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David Bello; David S Fieno; Raymond J Kim; F Scott Pereles; Rod Passman; Gina Song; Alan H Kadish; Jeffrey J Goldberger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R J Kim; E Wu; A Rafael; E L Chen; M A Parker; O Simonetti; F J Klocke; R O Bonow; R M Judd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anja Wagner; Heiko Mahrholdt; Thomas A Holly; Michael D Elliott; Matthias Regenfus; Michele Parker; Francis J Klocke; Robert O Bonow; Raymond J Kim; Robert M Judd Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Armin Huber; Stefan O Schoenberg; Benedikt Spannagl; Johannes Rieber; Isabelle Erhard; Volker Klauss; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Suvai Gunasekaran; Hassan Haji-Valizadeh; Daniel C Lee; Ryan J Avery; Brent D Wilson; Mark Ibrahim; Michael Markl; Rod S Passman; Eugene G Kholmovski; Daniel Kim Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Sudeep Sunthankar; David A Parra; Kristen George-Durrett; Kimberly Crum; Joshua D Chew; Jason Christensen; Frank J Raucci; Meng Xu; James C Slaughter; Jonathan H Soslow Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 1.093