Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: does a higher relaxivity MR contrast agent permit a reduction of the dose administered for routine vascular imaging applications?

  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The authors prospectively compared single dose (0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight) gadobenate dimeglumine with double dose (0.2 mmol/kg bodyweight) gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) in patients with suspected or known steno-occlusive disease of the carotid, renal or peripheral vasculature using an intra-individual crossover study design.

Materials and methods

Twenty-eight patients with suspected or known steno-occlusive disease of the carotid (n = 16), renal (n = 5) or peripheral arteries (n = 7) were randomised to receive either 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine or 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine for a first CE-MRA procedure. After 3–5 days all patients underwent a second identical CE-MRA procedure with the other contrast agent. Three blinded readers assessed images for vessel anatomical delineation, disease detection/exclusion, and global preference. Diagnostic performance for detection of ≥51 % stenosis was determined for 20/28 patients who also underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Non-inferiority was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank, McNemar and Wald tests. Quantitative (signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio) enhancement based on 3D maximum intensity projection reconstructions was compared.

Results

No differences were noted for any qualitative parameter. Equivalence was reported for all diagnostic preference end-points. Superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was reported by all readers for sensitivity for disease detection (80.8–86.5 vs. 75.0–82.7 %). Quantitative enhancement was similar for single dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine.

Conclusions

Under identical examination conditions a single 0.1 mmol/kg body weight dose of gadobenate dimeglumine can fully replace a double 0.2 mmol/kg body weight dose of gadopentetate dimeglumine for routine CE-MRA procedures.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H et al (2006) Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 41:213–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J et al (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Giesel FL, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Wilkinson ID et al (2006) Influence of human serum albumin on longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates (R1 and R2) of magnetic resonance contrast agents. Invest Radiol 41:222–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rowley HA, Scialfa G, Gao PY et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions: a large-scale intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29:1684–1691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rumboldt Z, Rowley HA, Steinberg F et al (2009) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of the CNS at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:760–767

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seidl Z, Vymazal J, Mechl M et al (2012) Does higher gadolinium concentration play a role in the morphologic assessment of brain tumors? results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine (the MERIT Study). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1050–1058

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 237:45–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1339–1346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martincich L, Faivre-Pierret M, Zechmann CM et al (2011) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial). Radiology 258:396–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Knopp MV, Giesel FL, von Tengg-Kobligk H et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the run-off vasculature: intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 17:694–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S et al (2010) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries. Radiology 255:988–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bültmann E, Erb G, Kirchin MA, Klose U, Naegele T (2008) Intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic vessels at 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 43:695–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Prokop M, Schneider G, Vanzulli A et al (2005) Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: blinded multicenter crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 234:399–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stein PD, Chenevert TL, Fowler SE et al (2010) Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for pulmonary embolism: a multicenter prospective study (PIOPED III). Ann Intern Med 152:434–443

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Woodard PK, Chenevert TL, Sostman HD et al (2012) Signal quality of single dose gadobenate dimeglumine pulmonary MRA examinations exceeds quality of MRA performed with double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28:295–301

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Balci NC, Inan N, Anik Y et al (2006) Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard-dose gadopentate dimeglumine for delayed contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Acad Radiol 13:833–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schneider G, Maas R, Schultze Kool L et al (2003) Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: an intra-individual crossover comparison. Invest Radiol 38:85–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Y, Li X, Li D et al (2013) Multicenter, intraindividual comparison of single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of the supra-aortic arteries (the Supra-Aortic Value Study). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:847–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang J, Yan F, Liu J et al (2013) Multicenter, intra-individual comparison of single dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of the peripheral arteries (the peripheral VALUE study). J Magn Reson Imaging 38:926–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fontaine R, Kim M, Kieny R (1954) Die chirurgische Behandlung der peripheren Durch-blutungsstörungen. Helv chir Acta 21:499–533

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR et al (2007) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology 243:148–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K et al (2007) Case-control study of gadodiamide-related nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22:3174–3178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Swaminathan S, Shah SV (2007) New insights into nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 18:2636–2643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Collidge TA, Thomson PC, Mark PB et al (2007) Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: retrospective study of a renal replacement therapy cohort. Radiology 245:168–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanal E, Broome DR, Martin DR, Thomsen HS (2008) Response to the FDA’s May 23, 2007, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis update. Radiology 246:11–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zou Z, Zhang HL, Roditi GH et al (2011) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: review of 370 biopsy-confirmed cases. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4:1206–1216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spinazzi A (2013) MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. In: MRI bioeffects, safety, and patient management. Shellock FG, Crues JV (ed) Biomedical Research Publishing Group Chapter 11

  28. Achenbach M, Figiel JH, Burbelko M, Heverhagen JT (2010) Prospective comparison of image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 0.5 molar gadobenate dimeglumine and 1.0 molar gadobutrol in contrast-enhanced run-off magnetic resonance angiography of the lower extremities. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:1166–1171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli PM et al (1997) Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins. A new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 32:780–796

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Xiaoying Xing, Xiangzhu Zeng, Xuan, Qiang Zhao, Miles A. Kirchin, Gianpaolo Pirovano, Xiaoying Wang, Yuan Li, Roberto Iezzi, Francesco De Cobelli declare that Bracco Imaging SpA provided financial support for the enrolment of patients. No other fees, grants or honoraria were provided.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, 100191, Beijing, China

    Xiaoying Xing, Xiangzhu Zeng, Xuan Li & Qiang Zhao

  2. Global Medical and Regulatory Affairs, Bracco Imaging SpA, Milan, Italy

    Miles A. Kirchin

  3. Global Medical and Regulatory Affairs, Bracco Diagnostics Inc, Monroe, NJ, USA

    Gianpaolo Pirovano

  4. Department of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, 100034, Beijing, China

    Xiaoying Wang

  5. Department of Radiology, Huashan Hospital Fudan University, 12 Wulumuqi Middle Road, JingAn District, 200040, Shanghai, China

    Yuan Li

  6. Department of Bioimaging and Radiological Sciences, Institute of Radiology, Catholic University, A. Gemelli Hospital, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Roberto Iezzi

  7. Radiologia Diagnostica, UO di Risonanza Magnetica, Ospedale San Raffaele, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milan, Italy

    Francesco De Cobelli

Authors
  1. Xiaoying Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangzhu Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qiang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miles A. Kirchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gianpaolo Pirovano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaoying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Roberto Iezzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Francesco De Cobelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuan Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xing, X., Zeng, X., Li, X. et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: does a higher relaxivity MR contrast agent permit a reduction of the dose administered for routine vascular imaging applications?. Radiol med 120, 239–250 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0434-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0434-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation