These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Contrast material for abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with parallel imaging: intraindividual equimolar comparison of a macrocyclic 1.0 M gadolinium chelate and a linear ionic 0.5 M gadolinium chelate.
    Author: Hadizadeh DR, Von Falkenhausen M, Kukuk GM, Schöneseiffen K, Gieseke J, Schild HH, Willinek WA.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Mar; 194(3):821-9. PubMed ID: 20173166.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare a macrocyclic 1.0 M contrast agent with a linear ionic 0.5 M contrast agent at equimolar dosage in regard to image quality and number of vessel segments visualized at abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In an intraindividual comparative study, 15 patients (six women, nine men; mean age, 53 +/- 12.1 years; range, 25-72 years) underwent 32 1.5-T whole-body contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiographic examinations performed with parallel imaging technique. At random and in separate sessions, each patient was examined after IV injection of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol and 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three-dimensional data sets were acquired in the arterial, portal venous, and venous phases with identical imaging protocols. Quantitative analysis included contrast measurements of vessels compared with adjacent background tissue (Student's t test). Qualitative analysis was performed independently by two radiologists with regard to visualization of arterial and venous vessel segments and overall image quality (Wilcoxon's test). RESULTS: Visualization of individual vessel segments was rated significantly better after administration of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (p < 0.001). Overall image quality was superior with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol, but the difference was not significant. Vessel-to-background contrast after injection of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol was significantly higher (arterial phase, 0.90, p = 0.02; portal venous phase, 0.78, p = 0.0002; venous phase, 0.74, p = 0.0002) compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (arterial phase, 0.89; portal venous phase, 0.73; venous phase, 0.67). CONCLUSION: At abdominal contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography, depiction of small abdominal vessels was significantly better and vessel-to-tissue contrast significantly higher with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol than with an equimolar dose of 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]