Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Respiratory motion artefacts in dynamic liver MRI: a comparison using gadoxetate disodium and gadobutrol

  • Contrast Media
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Bruix J, Sherman M (2005) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42:1208–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Willatt JM, Hussain HK, Adusumilli S, Marrero JA (2008) MR Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies. Radiology 247:311–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM, Gores GJ, Langer B, Perrier A (2012) Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol 13:e11–e22

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Albiin N (2012) MRI of Focal Liver Lesions. Curr Med Imaging Rev 8:107–116

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grazioli L, Morana G, Kirchin MA, Schneider G (2005) Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study. Radiology 236:166–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J et al (2008) Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 18:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A et al (2005) Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT–initial observations. Radiology 234:468–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Raman SS, Leary C, Bluemke DA et al (2010) Improved characterization of focal liver lesions with liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter phase 3 clinical trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:163–172

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Denecke T, Steffen IG, Agarwal S et al (2012) Appearance of hepatocellular adenomas on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 22:1769–1775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fujita N, Nishie A, Kubo Y et al (2014) Hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical significance of signal heterogeneity in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3349-9

    Google Scholar 

  12. Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM et al (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology 266:452–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stenver D (2009) Pharmacovigilance: when to report adverse reactions. In: Thomsen H, Webb J (eds) Contrast media safety issues and ESUR guidelines. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davenport MS, Caoili EM, Kaza RK, Hussain HK (2014) Matched within-patient cohort study of transient arterial phase respiratory motion-related artifact in MR imaging of the liver: gadoxetate disodium versus gadobenate dimeglumine. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.14132269:132269

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pietryga JA, Burke LM, Marin D, Jaffe TA, Bashir MR (2014) Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase imaging with gadoxetate disodium: examination recovery with a multiple arterial phase acquisition. Radiology 271:426–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergmann K, Agris J, Balzer T (2013) Does intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium have any effect on breath-hold times. Radiology 268:926–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Davenport MS, Bashir MR, Pietryga JA, Weber JT, Khalatbari S, Hussain HK (2014) Dose-toxicity relationship of gadoxetate disodium and transient severe respiratory motion artifact. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:796–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bashir MR, Castelli P, Davenport MS et al (2014) Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase mr imaging with gadoxetate disodium is more common in patients with a prior episode of arterial phase motion associated with gadoxetate disodium. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.14140386:140386

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holland AE, Goldfarb JW, Edelman RR (1998) Diaphragmatic and cardiac motion during suspended breathing: preliminary experience and implications for breath-hold MR imaging. Radiology 209:483–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A et al (2004) Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology 230:266–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tanimoto A, Lee JM, Murakami T, Huppertz A, Kudo M, Grazioli L (2009) Consensus report of the 2nd International Forum for Liver MRI. Eur Radiol 19(Suppl 5):S975–S989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haradome H, Grazioli L, Tsunoo M et al (2010) Can MR fluoroscopic triggering technique and slow rate injection provide appropriate arterial phase images with reducing artefacts on gadoxetic acid-DTPA (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced hepatic MR imaging? J Magn Reson Imaging 32:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:13–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Agrawal MD, Spincemaille P, Mennitt KW et al (2013) Improved hepatic arterial phase MRI with 3-second temporal resolution. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1129–1136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Guido M. Kukuk. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany

    Julian A. Luetkens, Patrick A. Kupczyk, Jonas Doerner, Winfried A. Willinek, Hans H. Schild & Guido M. Kukuk

  2. Department of Medical Biometry, Informatics, and Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany

    Rolf Fimmers

Authors
  1. Julian A. Luetkens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick A. Kupczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonas Doerner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rolf Fimmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Winfried A. Willinek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans H. Schild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Guido M. Kukuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido M. Kukuk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luetkens, J.A., Kupczyk, P.A., Doerner, J. et al. Respiratory motion artefacts in dynamic liver MRI: a comparison using gadoxetate disodium and gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 25, 3207–3213 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3736-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3736-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation