Pavol Szomolanyi1,2, Martin Rohrer3, Thomas Frenzel3, Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann1,4, Gregor Jost3, Jan Endrikat3,5, Siegfried Trattnig1,6,7, Hubertus Pietsch3. 1. From the MR Centre - Highfield MR, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Imaging Methods, Institute of Measurement Science, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia. 3. Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. University Medical School of Saarland, Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics, and Reproductive Medicine, Homburg/Saar, Germany. 6. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Clinical Molecular MR Imaging, Vienna. 7. Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The relaxivities of 3 macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) were determined in human plasma and blood under standardized and clinically relevant laboratory conditions. METHODS: The T1 relaxivity, r1, was determined in human plasma at 1.5, 3, and 7 T, and in human blood at 3 T at 37°C in phantoms containing 4 different concentrations of the macrocyclic GBCAs gadobutrol, gadoteridol, and gadoterate. An inversion recovery turbo spin echo sequence was used to generate images with several inversion times. The T1-times were obtained by fitting the signal intensities to the signal equation. r1 was obtained by a 1/y-weighted regression of the T1-rates over the concentration of the GBCAs. RESULTS: For gadobutrol, the obtained r1 [L/(mmol·s)] in human plasma at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T, and in human blood at 3 T was 4.78 ± 0.12, 4.97 ± 0.59, 3.83 ± 0.24, and 3.47 ± 0.16. For gadoteridol, r1 was 3.80 ± 0.10, 3.28 ± 0.09, 3.21 ± 0.07, and 2.61 ± 0.16, and for gadoterate, 3.32 ± 0.13, 3.00 ± 0.13, 2.84 ± 0.09, and 2.72 ± 0.17. CONCLUSIONS: The relaxivity of gadobutrol is significantly higher than that of gadoteridol and gadoterate at all magnetic field strengths and in plasma as well as in blood, whereas that of gadoteridol was higher than gadoterate only in plasma at 1.5 and 7 T. This is in accordance with results from 3 previous studies obtained in different media.
PURPOSE: The relaxivities of 3 macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) were determined in human plasma and blood under standardized and clinically relevant laboratory conditions. METHODS: The T1 relaxivity, r1, was determined in human plasma at 1.5, 3, and 7 T, and in human blood at 3 T at 37°C in phantoms containing 4 different concentrations of the macrocyclic GBCAsgadobutrol, gadoteridol, and gadoterate. An inversion recovery turbo spin echo sequence was used to generate images with several inversion times. The T1-times were obtained by fitting the signal intensities to the signal equation. r1 was obtained by a 1/y-weighted regression of the T1-rates over the concentration of the GBCAs. RESULTS: For gadobutrol, the obtained r1 [L/(mmol·s)] in human plasma at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T, and in human blood at 3 T was 4.78 ± 0.12, 4.97 ± 0.59, 3.83 ± 0.24, and 3.47 ± 0.16. For gadoteridol, r1 was 3.80 ± 0.10, 3.28 ± 0.09, 3.21 ± 0.07, and 2.61 ± 0.16, and for gadoterate, 3.32 ± 0.13, 3.00 ± 0.13, 2.84 ± 0.09, and 2.72 ± 0.17. CONCLUSIONS: The relaxivity of gadobutrol is significantly higher than that of gadoteridol and gadoterate at all magnetic field strengths and in plasma as well as in blood, whereas that of gadoteridol was higher than gadoterate only in plasma at 1.5 and 7 T. This is in accordance with results from 3 previous studies obtained in different media.
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Lukas D Weberling; Pascal J Kieslich; Oliver Eidel; Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Sabine Heiland; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin Bendszus Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vincent Jacques; Stéphane Dumas; Wei-Chuan Sun; Jeffrey S Troughton; Matthew T Greenfield; Peter Caravan Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann; Pavol Szomolanyi; Vladimír Juras; Oliver Kraff; Mark E Ladd; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Yaqi Shen; Frank L Goerner; Christopher Snyder; John N Morelli; Dapeng Hao; Daoyu Hu; Xiaoming Li; Val M Runge Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Eszter Boros; Raja Srinivas; Hee-Kyung Kim; Arnold M Raitsimring; Andrei V Astashkin; Oleg G Poluektov; Jens Niklas; Andrew D Horning; Bruce Tidor; Peter Caravan Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Harriet B Eldredge; Marga Spiller; Jaclyn M Chasse; Matthew T Greenwood; Peter Caravan Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Matthew J Kuhn; Julia W Patriarche; Douglas Patriarche; Miles A Kirchin; Massimo Bona; Gianpaolo Pirovano Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Jessica Lohrke; Markus Berger; Thomas Frenzel; Christoph-Stephan Hilger; Gregor Jost; Olaf Panknin; Marcus Bauser; Wolfgang Ebert; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 10.065
Authors: Anneloes de Boer; Anita A Harteveld; Tobias T Pieters; Peter J Blankestijn; Clemens Bos; Martijn Froeling; Jaap A Joles; Marianne C Verhaar; Tim Leiner; Hans Hoogduin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 4.813