Advertisement

Use and Safety of Gadolinium Based Contrast Agents in Pediatric MR Imaging

  • Stephanie Holowka
  • Manohar Shroff
  • Govind B. ChavhanEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) used for MR imaging are a valuable imaging resource that has benefited patient management over last three decades and largely have a high safety profile. However, recently, adverse effects related to GBCA like nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) and asymptomatic gadolinium deposition in tissues including brain are concerning. While NSF has largely stopped occurring due to precautions and guidelines to not use GBCA in patients with poor renal function, the long term effects of gadolinium deposition, especially in brain, are not known at this stage. Cautious approach needs to be taken with risk-benefit analysis in each patient to avoid its administration when not necessary. In this review, authors discuss basics of gadolinium, mechanism of enhancement, agents in clinical use and safety issues, and in the end, offer some solutions for safety concerns.

Keywords

Gadolinium-based contrast agents MRI NSF Gadolinium deposition Children 

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed to literature search, writing the manuscript and review of the manuscript. GBC will act as guarantor for this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

GBC received Moderator Honararium in 2018 from Bayer Inc.

Source of Funding

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J, et al. 25 years of contrast-enhanced MRI: developments, current challenges and future perspectives. Adv Ther. 2016;33:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh J, Daftary A. Iodinated contrast media and their adverse reactions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2008;36:69–74 quiz 6-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Juluru K, Vogel-Claussen J, Macura KJ, Kamel IR, Steever A, Bluemke DA. MR imaging in patients at risk for developing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: protocols, practices, and imaging techniques to maximize patient safety. Radiographics. 2009;29:9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanda T, Oba H, Toyoda K, Kitajima K, Furui S. Brain gadolinium deposition after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34:3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hütter J, Weinmann HJ. Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Investig Radiol. 2008;43:817–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Runge VM. Commentary on T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats: difference between linear and macrocyclic agents. Investig Radiol. 2015;50:481–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, Strouse PJ, Jan SC. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i.V. Contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1533–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tweedle MF, Kanal E. Muller R. Considerations in the selection of a new gadolinium-based contrast agents. Appl Radiol. 2014, May 12.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    American College of Radiology Manual of Contrast Media Version 10.2. 2016. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual. Accessed 25 Aug 2018.
  10. 10.
    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.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schneider G, Schürholz H, Kirchin MA, Bücker A, Fries P. Safety and adverse effects during 24 hours after contrast-enhanced MRI with gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43:202–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rangamani S, Varghese J, Li L, et al. Safety of cardiac magnetic resonance and contrast angiography for neonates and small infants: a 10-year single-institution experience. Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42:1339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meng H, Grosse-Wortmann L. Gadolinium in pediatric cardiovascular magnetic resonance: what we know and how we practice. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomsen HS. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a serious late adverse reaction to gadodiamide. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2619–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Dawson P. Is there a causal relation between the administration of gadolinium based contrast media and the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF)? Clin Radiol. 2006;61:905–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Girardi M, Kay J, Elston DM, Leboit PE, Abu-Alfa A, Cowper SE. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: clinicopathological definition and workup recommendations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:1095–106.e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nardone B, Saddleton E, Laumann AE, et al. Pediatric nephrogenic systemic fibrosis is rarely reported: a RADAR report. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44:173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2014;270:834–41.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275:772–82.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology. 2015;275:783–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, Kanal E, Reeder SB; International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16:564–70.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts DR, Welsh CA, Davis WC. Gadolinium deposition in the pediatric brain. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts DR, Chatterjee AR, Yazdani M, et al. Pediatric patients demonstrate progressive T1-weighted hyperintensity in the dentate nucleus following multiple doses of gadolinium-based contrast agent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:2340–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Semelka RC, Ramalho J, Vakharia A, et al. Gadolinium deposition disease: initial description of a disease that has been around for a while. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34:1383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malayeri AA, Brooks KM, Bryant LH, et al. National Institutes of Health perspective on reports of gadolinium deposition in the brain. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Diana Afonso P, Kosinski AS, Spritzer CE. Following unenhanced MRI assessment for local recurrence after surgical resection of mesenchymal soft tissue tumors, do additional gadolinium-enhanced images change reader confidence or diagnosis? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:806–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macari M, Lee T, Kim S, et al. Is gadolinium necessary for MRI follow-up evaluation of cystic lesions in the pancreas? Preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:159–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gollub MJ, Lakhman Y, McGinty K, et al. Does gadolinium-based contrast material improve diagnostic accuracy of local invasion in rectal cancer MRI? A multireader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W160–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohd Zaki F, Moineddin R, Grant R, Chavhan GB. Accuracy of pre-contrast imaging in abdominal magnetic resonance imaging of pediatric oncology patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46:1684–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Averill LW, Hernandez A, Gonzalez L, Peña AH, Jaramillo D. Diagnosis of osteomyelitis in children: utility of fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1232–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weiss PF, Xiao R, Biko DM, Johnson AM, Chauvin NA. Detection of inflammatory sacroiliitis in children with magnetic resonance imaging: is gadolinium contrast enhancement necessary? Arthritis Rheum. 2015;67:2250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dünger D, Krause M, Gräfe D, Merkenschlager A, Roth C, Sorge I. Do we need gadolinium-based contrast medium for brain magnetic resonance imaging in children? Pediatr Radiol. 2018;48:858–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital For Sick Children and Medical ImagingUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations