Neuroradiology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 27–30 | Cite as

Randomised double blind trial of the safety and efficacy of two gadolinium complexes (Gd-DTPA and Gd-DOTA)

  • P. Brugiores
  • A. Gaston
  • H. R. Degryse
  • P. M. Parizel
  • A. M. de Schepper
  • I. Berry
  • C. Manelfe
  • F. Le Bras
  • C. Marsauh
  • W. Wichmann
  • A. Valavanis
Diagnostic Neuroradiology

Abstract

The main difference between macrocyclic Gd-DOTA and linear Gd-DTPA complexes is the greater stability of the former which theoretically might reduce biological interactions in man. To evaluate the clinical relevance of this property, 300 unselected neurological patients were included in a randomised double-blind comparison involving five European centres, focused mainly on the tolerance of these two contrast media. Clinical tolerance was assessed immediatley after the procedure and 24 h later. Adverse events were found with a similar frequency in the two groups (17.3% for Gd-DOTA and 19.3% for Gd-DTPA). Minor neurological symptoms were the most frequent (48.6%) headache being the most common (29.2% of adverse events). No difference in efficacy was found.

Key words

Contrast media MR Comparative studies Gadolinium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Armitage FE, Richardson DE, Li KCP (1990) Polymeric contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: synthesis and characterization of gadolinium diethylenetriaminepenta-acetic acid conjugated to polysaccharides. Bioconj Chem 1: 365–374Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonnemain B, Lautrou J, Meyer D, Doucet D (1987) Produits de contraste non radiologiques (IRM). In: Amiel M, Ducassou D, Frija G, Grenier P (eds) Medical imaging research. INSERM, Paris, pp 61–67Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brücher E, Lanrenczy G (1981) Aminopolycarboxylates of rare earths. VIII. Kinetic study of exchange reactions between Eu3+ ions and lanthanide (III) diethylenetriaminepentaacetate complexes. J Inorg Nucl Chem 43: 2089–2096Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang CA (1991) Lanthanide magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents: thermodynamic, kinetic and structural properites of lanthanide (III) macrocyclic complexes. Eur J Solid State Inorg 28: 237–244Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fritz T, Unger E, Wilson-Sanders S, Ahkong QF, Tilcock C (1991) Detailed toxicity studies of liposomal gadolinium DTPA. Invest Radiol 26: 960–968Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golstein H, Kashanian FK, Blumetti RF et al (1990) Safety assessment of gadopentetate dimeglumine in US clinical trials. Radiology 174: 17–23Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haler TJ (1979) Toxicity. In: Gschneider KA Jr, Eyring L (eds) Handbook on the physics and chemistry of rare earths. North Holland, Amsterdam, 40: 553–585Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harbur OL (1991) Generalized seizure after IV administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR 12: 666Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International application files. International date Larobatoire Guerbet, 1989Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laflore J, Golstein H, Rogan R et al (1989) A prospective evaluation of adverse experiences following the administration of Magnevist (gadopentetate dimeglumine) injection. In: SMRM August 12–18, Amsterdam, p 1067Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lauffer RB (1990) Magnetic resonance contrast media: principles and progress. Magn Reson Q 6: 2: 65–84Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer D, Schaefer M, Bonnemain B (1988) Gd-DOTA, a potential MRI contrast agent: current status of physicochemical knowledge. Invest Radiol 23: 232–235Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neiss AC, Le Mignon MM, Vitry A, Caillé JM (1991) Efficacité et tolérance du DOTA-Gd lors d'une unquête multicentrique européenne: résultats préliminaires sur 4169 cas. Rev Im Méd 3: 383–387Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niendorf HP, Dinger JC, Hausteins J et al (1991) Tolerance data of Gd-DTPA: a review. Europ J Radiol 13: 15–20Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salonen ALM (1990) Case of anaphylaxis and four cases of allergic reaction following Gd-DTPA administration. J Comput Assist Tomogr 4: 912–913Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaefer M, Meyer D, Beauté S, Doucet D (1991) A new macrocyclic MRI contrast agent; Gd-MCTA complex. Magn Reson Med 22: 238–241Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sieving PF, Watson AD, Rocklage SM (1990) Preparation and characterization of paramagnetic polychelates and their protein conjugates. Bioconj Chem 1: 65–71Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tishler S, Hoffman JC (1990) Anaphylactoid reactions to IV gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR 11: 1167Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tweedle MR, Hagan JJ, Kumar K, Mantha S, Chang CA (1991) Reaction of gadolinium chelates with endogenously available ions. Magn Reson Imag 9: 409–415Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Unger EC, Fritz TA, Tilcock C, New TE (1991) Clearance of liposomal gadolinium: in vivo decomplexation. JMRI 1: 689–693Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss KL (1990) Severe anaphylactoid reaction after IV Gd-DTPA. Magn Reson Imag 8: 817–818Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolf GL (1989) Current status of MRI imaging. Contrast agents: special report. Radiology 172: 709–710Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Brugiores
    • 1
  • A. Gaston
    • 1
  • H. R. Degryse
    • 2
  • P. M. Parizel
    • 2
  • A. M. de Schepper
    • 2
  • I. Berry
    • 3
  • C. Manelfe
    • 3
  • F. Le Bras
    • 4
  • C. Marsauh
    • 4
  • W. Wichmann
    • 5
  • A. Valavanis
    • 5
  1. 1.Neuroradiology DepartmentHôpital Henri MondorCréteilFrance
  2. 2.University Department of Radiology ZiekenhuisAntwerpen, EdegemBelgium
  3. 3.Neuroradiology DepartmentHôpital PurpanToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Neuroradiology DepartmentHôpital Pitié SalpétrièreParisFrance
  5. 5.Abteilung für NeuroradiologieUniversitätsspital ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations