Magnetic resonance evaluation of renal artery stenosis in a swine model: Performance of low-dose gadobutrol versus gadoterate meglumine in comparison with digital subtraction intra-arterial catheter angiography

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 376-382

  Morelli, John N ^a   Runge, Val M ^b   Ai, Fei ^c   Zhang, Wei ^c   Li, Xiaoming ^c   Schmitt, Peter ^d   McNeal, Gary ^e   Miller, Matthew ^f   Lennox, Mark ^f   Wusten, Oliver ^g   Schoenberg, Stefan O ^h   Attenberger, Ulrike I ^h  

^a SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

^c HUAZHONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^d SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

^e Siemens Medical Solutions USA   (United States)

^f TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GIESSEN   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

gadolinium chelates; MRA; renal artery stenosis; swine model

Indexed keywords

GADOBUTROL; GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTERY CATHETER; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONVENTIONAL ANGIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; INTRAARTERIAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; KIDNEY ARTERY STENOSIS; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

EID: 84861100296     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182539554     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Viera AJ, Neutze DM. Diagnosis of secondary hypertension: an age-based approach. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82:1471-1478.
2. Vano E, Gonzalez L, Fernandez JM, et al. Eye lens exposure to radiation in interventional suites: caution is warranted. Radiology. 2008;248:945-953.
3. Waugh JR, Sacharias N. Arteriographic complications in the DSA era. Radiology. 1992;182:243-246.
4. Soulez G, Pasowicz M, Benea G, et al. Renal artery stenosis evaluation: diagnostic performance of gadobenate dimeglumine- enhancedMRangiographyVcomparison with DSA. Radiology. 2008;247:273-285.
5. Kramer U, Wiskirchen J, Fenchel MC, et al. Isotropic high-spatial- resolution contrast-enhanced 3.0-T MR angiography in patients suspected of having renal artery stenosis. Radiology. 2008;247:228-240.
6. Versluis B, Backes WH, van Eupen MG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in peripheral arterial disease: reproducibility of the assessment of morphological and functional vascular status. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:11-24.
7. Wang Y, Alkasab TK, Narin O, et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after adoption of restrictive gadolinium-based contrast agent guidelines. Radiology. 2011;260:105-111.
8. Jain R, Levine M. Correction to the relative risk calculation for gadoliniumenhanced MR imaging and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology. 2010; 255:307-308; author reply 8.
9. Pietsch H, Raschke M, Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, et al. The role of residual gadolinium in the induction of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis-like skin lesions in rats. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:48-56.
10. Weinreb JC, Abu-Alfa AK. Gadolinium-based contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why did it happen and what have we learned? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1236-1239.
11. Edward M, Quinn JA, Burden AD, et al. Effect of different classes of gadolinium- based contrast agents on control and nephrogenic systemic fibrosisderived fibroblast proliferation. Radiology. 2010;256:735-743.
12. Voth M, Attenberger UI, Luckscheiter A, et al. "Number needed to read"Vhow to facilitate clinical trials in MR-angiography. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1034-1042.
13. Floery D, Fellner FA, Fellner C, et al. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the lower limbs: solving the problem of venous overlap. Rofo. 2011;183:136-143.
14. Pekkola J, Kangasniemi M. Posterior fossa dural arteriovenous fistulas: diagnosis and follow-up with time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics (TRICKS) at 1.5 T. Acta Radiol. 2011;52:442-447.
15. Zhang HL, Kent KC, Bush HL, et al. Soft tissue enhancement on time-resolved peripheral magnetic resonance angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 19:590-597.
16. Morelli JN, Ai F, Runge VM, et al. MR evaluation of renal artery stenosis in a swine model: performance of low-dose gadobutrol versus gadoterate meglumine with comparison to DSA. J Magn Reson Imaging. Submitted for publication.
17. Kramer H, Michaely HJ, Requardt M, et al. Effects of injection rate and dose on image quality in time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) by using 1.0 M contrast agents. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1394-1402.
18. Gossner J. Is nephrogenic systemic fibrosis linked to the introduction of contrast-enhanced MR angiography? Radiology. 2009;251:612-613; author reply 3.
19. Attenberger UI, Michaely HJ, Wintersperger BJ, et al. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic-resonance angiography of the renal arteries: interindividual comparison of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobutrol at 1.5 T and 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1260-1268.
20. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, et al. Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (Multi- Hance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2006;41: 213-221.
21. 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;40:715-724.
22. Attenberger UI, Runge VM, Morelli JN, et al. Evaluation of gadobutrol, a macrocyclic, nonionic gadolinium chelate in a brain glioma model: comparison with gadoterate meglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine at 1.5 T, combined with an assessment of field strength dependence, specifically 1.5 versus 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:549-555.
23. Morelli JN, Runge VM, Vu L, et al. Evaluation of gadodiamide versus gadobutrol for contrast-enhanced mr imaging in a rat brain glioma model at 1.5 and 3 T. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:810-818.
24. Thomsen HS, Marckmann P. Extracellular Gd-CA: differences in prevalence of NSF. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66:180-183.
25. 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;46:663-671.
26. Sieber MA, Steger-Hartmann T, Lengsfeld P, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents and NSF: evidence from animal experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1268-1276.
27. Pietsch H, Lengsfeld P, Steger-Hartmann T, et al. Impact of renal impairment on long-term retention of gadolinium in the rodent skin following the administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:226-233.
28. Achenbach M, Figiel JH, Burbelko M, et al. 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. 2010;32:1166-1171.
29. Attenberger UI, Haneder S, Morelli JN, et al. Peripheral arterial occlusive disease: evaluation of a high spatial and temporal resolution 3-T MR protocol with a low total dose of gadolinium versus conventional angiography. Radiology. 2010;257:879-887.
30. Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries. Radiology. 2010;255:988-1000.
31. Schneider G, Pasowicz M, Vymazal J, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium for MR angiography of the renal arteries: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195: 476-485.
32. Attenberger UI, Runge VM, Jackson CB, et al. Comparative evaluation of lesion enhancement using 1Mgadobutrol vs. 2 conventional gadoliniumchelates, all at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg, in a rat brain tumor model at 3 T. Invest Radiol 2009;44:251-256.
33. Fink C, Bock M, Kiessling F, et al. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced threedimensional pulmonary MR-angiography: 1.0 M gadobutrol vs. 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:202-208.
34. Husarik DB, Bashir MR, Weber PW, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: first-pass arterial enhancement as a function of gadoliniumchelate concentration, and the saline chaser volume and injection rate. Invest Radiol. 2011;47:121-127.
35. Schoenberg SO, Rieger J, Weber CH, et al. High-spatial-resolution MR angiography of renal arteries with integrated parallel acquisitions: comparison with digital subtraction angiography and US. Radiology. 2005;235:687-698.