Contrast Agents for MR Angiography

  • Christoph U. Herborn


Recent years have seen the rapid development of techniques and applications for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and the growing acceptance of the method in clinical routine. In addition to advances in hardware and software design, especially the development in the field of contrast media for CE-MRA has triggered the modality to increasingly become the diagnostic standard of reference for vascular imaging. Despite the majority of MR contrast agents is still lacking the direct approval for CE-MRA, this chapter reviews the properties and characteristics of both currently available agents and those which have been developed recently and are now on their way to the clinical market.


Contrast Agent Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis Paramagnetic Contrast Agent Vessel Wall Imaging Gadofosveset Trisodium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli PM, et al. Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins. A new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 1997;32:780–796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hany TF, Schmidt M, Hilfiker PR, Steiner P, Bachmann U, Debatin JF. Optimization of contrast dosage for gadolinium-enhanced 3D MRA of the pulmonary and renal arteries. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16:901–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lauffer RB, Parmelee DJ, Dunham SU, et al. MS-325: albumin-targeted contrast agent for MR angiography. Radiology. 1998;207:529–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grist TM, Korosec FR, Peters DC, et al. Steady-state and dynamic MR angiography with MS-325: initial experience in humans. Radiology. 1998; 207:539–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Runge VM, Knopp MV. Off-label use and reimbursement of contrast media in MR. J Magn Reson Imaging.1999;10:489–495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knopp MV, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Floemer F, Schoenberg SO. Contrast agents for MRA: future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:314–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tombach B, Reimer P, Prumer B, et al. Does a higher concentration of gadolinium chelates improve first-pass cardiac signal changes? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:806–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reimer P, Allkemper T, Matuszewski L, Balzer T. Contrast-enhanced 3D-MRA of the upper abdomen with a bolus-injectable SPIO (SH U 555 A). J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:65–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goyen M, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF. MR-angiography: the role of contrast agents. Eur J Radiol. 2000;34:247–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Port M, Corot C, Raynal I, et al. Physicochemical and biological evaluation of P792, a rapid-clearance blood-pool agent for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2001;36:445–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Port M, Corot C, Rousseaux O, et al. P792: a rapid clearance blood pool agent for magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary results. Magma. 2001;12:121–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knopp MV, Schoenberg SO, Rehm C, et al. Assessment of gadobenate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance angiography: phase I studies. Invest Radiol. 2002;37:706–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerber BL, Bluemke DA, Chin BB, et al. Single-vessel coronary artery stenosis: myocardial perfusion imaging with Gadomer-17 first-pass MR imaging in a swine model of comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2002; 225:104–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraitchman DL, Chin BB, Heldman AW, Solaiyappan M, Bluemke DA. MRI detection of myocardial perfusion defects due to coronary artery stenosis with MS-325. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15:149–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bachmann R, Conrad R, Kreft B, et al. Evaluation of a new ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast agent Clariscan, (NC100150) for MRI of renal perfusion: experimental study in an animal model. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 16:190–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;13:2103–2114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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;13:2067–2074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herborn CU, Goyen M, Lauenstein TC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG, Kroger K. Comprehensive time-resolved MRI of peripheral vascular malformations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:729–735.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herborn CU, Lauenstein TC, Ruehm SG, Bosk S, Debatin JF, Goyen M. Intraindividual comparison of gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadobenate dimeglumine, and gadobutrol for pelvic 3D magnetic resonance angiography. Invest Radiol.2003;38:27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wyttenbach R, Gianella S, Alerci M, Braghetti A, Cozzi L, Gallino A. Prospective blinded evaluation of Gd-DOTA- versus Gd-BOPTA-enhanced peripheral MR angiography, as compared with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology. 2003;227:261–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goyen M, Herborn CU, Kroger K, Lauenstein TC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG. Detection of atherosclerosis: systemic imaging for systemic disease with whole-body three-dimensional MR angiography – initial experience. Radiology. 2003;227:277–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herborn CU, Barkhausen J, Paetsch I, et al. Coronary arteries: ­contrast-enhanced MR imaging with SH L 643A – experience in 12 volunteers. Radiology. 2003;229:217–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huber ME, Paetsch I, Schnackenburg B, et al. Performance of a new gadolinium-based intravascular contrast agent in free-breathing inversion-recovery 3D coronary MRA. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49:115–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herborn CU, Ajaj W, Goyen M, Massing S, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF. Peripheral vasculature: whole-body MR angiography with midfemoral venous compression – initial experience. Radiology. 2004;230:872–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, et al. Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology. 2004;230:266–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paetsch I, Huber ME, Bornstedt A, et al. Improved three-dimensional free-breathing coronary magnetic resonance angiography using gadocoletic acid (B-22956) for intravascular contrast enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:288–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prokop M, Schneider G, Vanzulli A, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography of the renal arteries: blinded multicenter crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2005;234:399–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goyen M, Edelman M, Perreault P, et al. MR angiography of aortoiliac occlusive disease: a phase III study of the safety and effectiveness of the blood-pool contrast agent MS-325. Radiology. 2005;236:825–833.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fink C, Goyen M, Lotz J. Magnetic resonance angiography with blood-pool contrast agents: future applications. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(Suppl 2):B38-B44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meaney JF, Goyen M. Recent advances in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(Suppl 2):B2-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vogt FM, Herborn CU, Parsons EC, Kroger K, Barkhausen J, Goyen M. [Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the aortoiliac arteries with the blood pool agent Vasovist: initial results in comparison to intra-arterial DSA]. Rofo. 2007;179:412–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prince MR, Zhang H, Morris M, et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis at two large medical centers. Radiology. 2008;248:807–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prince MR, Zhang HL, Prowda JC, Grossman ME, Silvers DN. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and its impact on abdominal imaging. Radiographics. 2009;29:1565–1574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prince MR, Zhang HL, Roditi GH, Leiner T, Kucharczyk W. Risk factors for NSF: a literature review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1298–1308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations