Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp 773–784 | Cite as

Gadobutrol: A Review in Contrast-Enhanced MRI and MRA

  • Lesley J. Scott
Adis Drug Evaluation


Intravenous gadobutrol [Gadovist (EU); Gadavist® (USA)] is a second-generation, extracellular non-ionic macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) that is approved for use in paediatric (including term neonates) and adult patients undergoing diagnostic contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI for visualization of pathological lesions in all body regions or for CE MRA to evaluate perfusion and flow-related abnormalities. Its unique physicochemical profile, including its high thermostability and proton relaxation times, means that gadobutrol is formulated at twice the gadolinium ion concentration of other GBCAs, resulting in a narrower bolus and consequently, improved dynamic image enhancement. Based on > 20 years of experience in the clinical trial and real-world settings (> 50 million doses) and its low risk for developing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), gadobutrol represents an effective and safe diagnostic GBCA for use in CE MRI and MRA to visualize pathological lesions and vascular perfusion and flow-related abnormalities in all body regions in a broad spectrum of patients, including term neonates and other paediatric patients, young and elderly adult patients, and those with moderate or severe renal or hepatic impairment or cardiovascular (CV) disease.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

During the peer review process, the manufacturer of gadobutrol was also offered an opportunity to review this article. Changes resulting from comments received were made on the basis of scientific and editorial merit.


The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding.

Conflict of interest

Lesley Scott is a salaried employee of Adis/Springer, is responsible for the article content and declares no relevant conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    American College of Rheumatology. ACR manual on contrast media: version 10.3. 2017. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.
  2. 2.
    Grobner T. Gadolinium: a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2006;21(4):1104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Medicines Agency. Gadolinium-containing contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: long-term consequences of retention in human skin and bone. 2010. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.
  4. 4.
    US FDA. New warnings for using gadolinium-based contrast agents in patients with kidney dysfunction. 2015. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.
  5. 5.
    Scott LJ. Gadobutrol: a review of its use for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in adults and children. Clin Drug Investig. 2013;33(4):303–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endrikat J, Anzalone N. Gadobutrol in India: a comprehensive review of safety and efficacy. Magn Reson Insights. 2017. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, et al. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol. 2005;40(11):715–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gutierrez JE, Koenig S, Breuer J. Overview on the efficacy and safety of gadbutrol: an MRI contrast agent for the CNS, body and vessels. Imaging Med. 2012;4(1):25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huppertz A, Rohrer M. Gadobutrol, a highly concentrated MR-imaging contrast agent: its physicochemical characteristics and the basis for its use in contrast-enhanced MR angiography and perfusion imaging. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(Suppl 5):M12–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kramer JH, Arnoldi E, Francois CJ, et al. Dynamic and static magnetic resonance angiography of the supra-aortic vessels at 3.0 T. Invest Radiol. 2013;48(3):121–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. Gadavist (gadobutrol) injection, for intravenous use: US prescribing information. 2016. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.
  12. 12.
    Bayer plc. Summary of product characteristics, labelling and package leaflet: Gadovist 1.0 mmol/mL solution for injection. 2017. Accessed 26 Jun 2018.
  13. 13.
    Kunze C, Mentzel HJ, Krishnamurthy R, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of macrocyclic gadobutrol in children aged younger than 2 years including term newborns in comparison to older populations. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(1):50–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hahn G, Sorge I, Gruhn B, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of gadobutrol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(12):776–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 1 M gadobutrol in patients with chronic renal failure. Invest Radiol. 2000;35(1):35–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P, et al. Using highly concentrated gadobutrol as an MR contrast agent in patients also requiring hemodialysis: safety and dialysability. Am J Roentgen. 2002;178(1):105–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glutig K, Bhargava R, Hahn G, et al. Safety of gadobutrol in more than 1000 pediatric patients: subanalysis of the GARDIAN study, a global multicenter prospective non-interventional study. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(9):1317–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prince MR, Lee HG, Lee CH, et al. Safety of gadobutrol in over 23,000 patients: the GARDIAN study, a global multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(1):286–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhargava R, Noga M. Safety and efficacy of gadobutrol-enhanced MRI in patients aged under 2 years: a single-center, observational study. Magn Reson Insights. 2013;6:1–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gutierrez JE, Rosenberg M, Seemann J, et al. Safety and efficacy of gadobutrol for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system: results from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparator study. Magn Reson Insights. 2015;8:1–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gutierrez JE, Rosenberg M, Duhaney M, et al. Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of gadobutrol, a 1.0 molar macrocyclic MR imaging contrast agent, in patients referred for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the central nervous system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(3):788–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anzalone N, Scarabino T, Venturi C, et al. Cerebral neoplastic enhancing lesions: multicenter, randomized, crossover intraindividual comparison between gadobutrol (1.0 M) and gadoterate meglumine (0.5 M) at 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(1):139–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanaka A, Masumoto T, Yamada H, et al. A Japanese, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study to investigate the safety and efficacy of gadobutrol for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the central nervous system. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2016;15(2):227–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katakami N, Inaba Y, Sugata S, et al. Magnetic resonance evaluation of brain metastases from systemic malignances with two doses of gadobutrol 1.0 M compared with gadoteridol: a multicenter, phase II/III study in patients with known or suspected brain metastases. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(7):411–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maravilla KR, San-Juan D, Kim SJ, et al. Comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol in the MRI diagnosis of primary brain tumors: a double-blind randomized controlled intraindividual crossover study (the REMIND Study). Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(9):1681–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maravilla KR, Smith MP, Vymazal J, et al. Are there differences between macrocyclic gadolinium contrast agents for brain tumor imaging? Results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobutrol with gadoteridol (the TRUTH study). Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(1):14–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saake M, Langner S, Schwenke C, et al. MRI in multiple sclerosis: an intra-individual, randomized and multicentric comparison of gadobutrol with gadoterate meglumine at 3 T. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(3):820–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hentsch A, Aschauer MA, Balzer JO, et al. Gadobutrol-enhanced moving-table magnetic resonance angiography in patients with peripheral vascular disease: a prospective, multi-centre blinded comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(9):2103–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaefer FKW, Schaefer PJ, Altjohann C, et al. A multicenter, site-independent, blinded study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography using 1.0 M gadobutrol (Gadovist™) to intraarterial digital subtraction angiography in body arteries. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(2):315–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Loewe C, Arnaiz J, Krause D, et al. MR angiography at 3 T of peripheral arterial disease: a randomized prospective comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(6):1311–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoelter P, Lang S, Weibart M, et al. Prospective intraindividual comparison of gadoterate and gadobutrol for cervical and intracranial contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Neuroradiology. 2017;59(12):1233–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hammerstingl R, Adam G, Ayuso J-R, et al. Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in five hundred seventy-two patients with known or suspected liver lesions: results of a multicenter, double-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase-III trial. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(3):168–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tombach B, Bohndorf K, Brodtrager W, et al. Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(11):2610–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sardanelli F, Newstead GM, Putz B, et al. Gadobutrol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in the preoperative setting: results of 2 prospective international multicenter phase III studies. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(7):454–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fallenberg EM, Renz DM, Karle B, et al. Intraindividual, randomized comparison of the macrocyclic contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine in breast magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(3):837–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pediconi F, Kubik-Huch R, Chilla B, et al. Intra-individual randomised comparison of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M in patients scheduled for preoperative breast MRI. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(1):84–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Escribano F, Sentis M, Oliva JC, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: comparison of gadobutrol vs. Gd-DTPA. Radiologia. 2017;60(1):49–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sardanelli F. Preoperative breast MRI: first results from the MIPA study [abstract]. Insights into Imaging. 2017;8(Suppl. 1):S491.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trimboli RM, Di Leo G, Sacchetto D, et al. New insights into preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from the multicentre individual patient analysis (MIPA) study [abstract]. Insights into Imaging. 2017;8(Suppl. 1):485.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Emaus MJ, Bakker MF, Peeters PHM, et al. MR imaging as an additional screening modality for the detection of breast cancer in women aged 50-75 years with extremely dense breasts: the DENSE trial study design. Radiology. 2015;277(2):527–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kuwatsuru R, Takahashi S, Umeoka S, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blind comparison phase III study to determine the efficacy and safety of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadopentetate dimeglumine following single injection in patients referred for contrast-enhanced MRI of the body regions or extremities. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(2):404–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rudolph A, Messroghli D, von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of gadopentetate and gadobutrol to assess chronic myocardial infarction applying cardiovascular magnetic resonance. BMC Med Imaging. 2015;15:55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Doeblin P, Schilling R, Wagner M, et al. Intraindividual comparison of T1 relaxation times after gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA administration for cardiac late enhancement imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(4):660–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wildgruber M, Stadlbauer T, Rasper M, et al. Single-dose gadobutrol in comparison with single-dose gadobenate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance imaging of chronic myocardial infarction at 3 T. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(11):728–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    De Cobelli F, Esposito A, Perseghin G, et al. Intraindividual comparison of gadobutrol and gadopentetate dimeglumine for detection of myocardial late enhancement in cardiac MRI. AM J Radiol. 2012;198:809–16.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu D, Ma X, Liu J, et al. Quantitative analysis of late gadolinium enhancement in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: comparison of diagnostic performance in myocardial fibrosis between gadobutrol and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33(8):1191–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kim CK, Park JJ, Park BK. Prostate diffusion-weighted imaging at 3T: effect of intravenous gadobutrol administration. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(5):1450–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Durmus T, Vollnberg B, Schwenke C, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the prostate: comparison of gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA. Rofo. 2013;185(9):862–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Choi TW, Lee JM, Kim JH, et al. Comparison of multidetector CT and gadobutrol-enhanced MR imaging for evaluation of small, solid pancreatic lesions. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17(4):509–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Data on file, Bayer AG., 2018.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Forsting M, Palkowitsch P. Prevalence of acute adverse reactions to gadobutrol–a highly concentrated macrocyclic gadolinium chelate: review of 14,299 patients from observational trials. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(3):e186–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Endrikat J, Vogtlaender K, Dohanish S, et al. Safety of gadobutrol: results from 42 clinical phase II to IV studies and postmarketing surveillance after 29 million applications. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(9):537–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Voth M, Rosenberg M, Breuer J. Safety of gadobutrol, a new generation of contrast agents: experience from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(11):663–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Endrikat J, Schwenke C, Prince MR. Gadobutrol for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in elderly patients: review of the safety profile from clinical trial, post-marketing surveillance, and pharmacovigilance data. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(7):743–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Palkowitsch P, Voth M. Summary of the safety data for gadobutrol and gadofosveset. Eur Radiol. 2009;18(Suppl. 5):E47–54.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Balzer JO, Loewe C, Davis K, et al. Safety of contrast-enhanced MR angiography employing gadobutrol 1.0 M as contrast material. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(9):2067–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Power S, Talbot N, Kucharczyk W, et al. Allergic-like reactions to the MR imaging contrast agent gadobutrol: a prospective study of 32 991 consecutive injections. Radiology. 2016;281(1):72–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Michaely HJ, Aschauer M, Deutschmann H, et al. Gadobutrol in renally impaired patients: results of the GRIP study. Invest Radiol. 2017;52(1):55–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Malik M, Hnatkova K, Schmidt A, et al. Correction for QT/RR hysteresis in the assessment of drug-induced QTc changes: cardiac safety of gadobutrol. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2009;14:242–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Granata V, Cascella M, Fusco R, et al. Immediate adverse reactions to gadolinium-based MR contrast media: a retrospective analysis on 10,608 examinations. BioMed Res Internat. 2016;10:3918292.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, et al. Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 °C. Invest Radiol. 2008;43(12):817–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Endrikat J, Dohanish S, Schleyer N, et al. 10 years of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a comprehensive analysis of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis received by a pharmaceutical company from 2001 to 2016. Invest Radiol. 2018. Scholar
  63. 63.
    Girardi M, Kay J, Elston DM, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: clinicopathological definition and workup recommendations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:1095.e7–1106.e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bayer Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Gadovist IV injection: Japanese prescribing information. 2017. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
  65. 65.
    George E, Guenette JP, Lee TC. Introduction to neuroimaging. Am J Med. 2018;131:346–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fehlings MG, Martin AR, Tetreault LA, et al. A clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with acute spinal cord injury: recommendations on the role of baseline magnetic resonance imaging in clinical decision making and outcome prediction. Global Spine J. 2017;7(35):221S–30S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Holloway BJ, Rosewarne D, Jones RG. Imaging of thoracic aortic disease. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(3):S338–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sieber MA, Lengsfeld P, Frenzel T, et al. Preclinical investigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosis-like lesions. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(10):2164–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR guidelines on contrast media: version 8.1. 2017. Accessed 23 Apr 2018.
  70. 70.
    Kanda T, Oba H, Toyoda K, et al. Brain gadolinium deposition after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34(1):3–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Olchowy C, Cebulski K, Lasecki M, et al. The presence of the gadolinium-based contrast agent depositions in the brain and symptoms of gadolinium neurotoxicity: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cao Y, Huang DQ, Shih G, et al. Signal change in the dentate nucleus on T1-weighted MR images after multiple administrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(2):414–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Radbruch A, Haase R, Kieslich PJ, et al. No signal intensity increase in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after more than 20 serial injections of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology. 2017;282(3):699–707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. High-signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: evaluation of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent gadobutrol. Invest Radiol. 2015;50(12):805–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Renz DM, Kumpel S, Bottcher J, et al. Comparison of unenhanced T1-weighted signal intensities within the dentate nucleus and the globus pallidus after serial applications of gadopentetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol in a pediatric population. Invest Radiol. 2018;53(2):119–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schlemm L, Chien C, Bellmann-Strobl J, et al. Gadopentetate but not gadobutrol accumulates in the dentate nucleus of multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler. 2017;23(7):963–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yoo RE, Sohn CH, Kang KM, et al. Evaluation of gadolinium retention after serial administrations of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent (gadobutrol): a single-institution experience with 189 patients. Invest Radiol. 2018;53(1):20–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fingerhut S, Niehoff AC, Sperling M, et al. Spatially resolved quantification of gadolinium deposited in the brain of a patient treated with gadolinium-based contrast agents. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2018;45:125–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology. 2015;276(1):228–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Jentoft ME, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition following gadodiamide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: a case-control study. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(7):705–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275(3):772–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Gadolinium deposition in human brain tissues after contrast-enhanced MR imaging in adult patients without intracranial abnormalities. Radiology. 2017;285(2):546–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K, et al. Macrocyclic and other non-group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue: preliminary results from 9 patients with normal renal function. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(7):447–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Roberts DR, Welsh CA, LeBel DP 2nd, et al. Distribution map of gadolinium deposition within the cerebellum following GBCA administration. Neurology. 2017;88(12):1206–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tedeschi E, Caranci F, Giordano F, et al. Gadolinium retention in the body: what we know and what we can do. Radiol Med. 2017;122:589–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    European Medicines Agency. EMA’s final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans. 2017. Accessed 23 May 2018.
  87. 87.
    US FDA. FDA drug safety communication: FDA warns that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are retained in the body; requires new class warning. 2018. Accessed 23 May 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations