uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in MR angiography: an in-vitro phantom comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) at different concentrations
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Radiology.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Radiology.
2012 (English)In: Acta Radiologica, ISSN 0284-1851, E-ISSN 1600-0455, Vol. 53, no 10, 1112-1117 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Numerous clinical studies suggest that gadobenate dimeglumine is diagnostically superior to other gadolinium chelates for MR imaging applications, including contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA). However, confirmatory in-vitro phantom studies have thus far been lacking.

Purpose

To evaluate the difference in signal intensity achieved with the high-relaxivity MR contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) relative to that achieved with the standard-relaxivity non-specific agent gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) at different concentrations using an in-vitro phantom study design.

Material and Methods

Test tubes with whole human blood were prepared with concentrations of gadobenate dimeglumine or gadopentetate dimeglumine ranging from 0 to 12 mM. A three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted gradient echo sequence normally used for CE-MRA of the renal arteries was performed at flip angles of 25° and 35°. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated for all concentrations of both contrast agents. Furthermore a Look-Locker sequence was used and quantitative T1 mapping was performed for all the test tubes. The contrast agent concentration in the aorta was simulated using previously published data on T1 in the aorta during the first pass of a contrast agent. The differences between gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine were compared at the simulated concentrations.

Results

The SNR achieved with gadobenate dimeglumine was consistently greater than that achieved with gadopentetate dimeglumine at all concentrations. An improvement of 15-25% in SNR was obtained when increasing the flip angle from 25° to 35°. The relative improvement in SNR with gadobenate dimeglumine relative to gadopentetate dimeglumine ranged from 25-72% and was markedly greater at lower concentrations with a flip angle of 35°.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the relative benefit of gadobenate dimeglumine over gadopentetate dimeglumine for CE-MRA applications is greater at lower concentrations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 53, no 10, 1112-1117 p.
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-183658DOI: 10.1258/ar.2012.120181ISI: 000314077400007PubMedID: 23081961OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-183658DiVA: diva2:563662
Available from: 2012-10-31 Created: 2012-10-31 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Johansson, LarsAhlström, Håkan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Johansson, LarsAhlström, Håkan
By organisation
Radiology
In the same journal
Acta Radiologica
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 527 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf