Comparison of Magnetic Properties of MRI Contrast Media Solutions at Different Magnetic Field Strengths

Rohrer, Martin; Bauer, Hans; Mintorovitch, Jan; Requardt, Martin; Weinmann, Hanns‐Joachim

doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000184756.66360.d3

Cited by 1,479 publications

(1,486 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

103

Mentioning

1,326

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Relaxivity results at 60 MHz and 3 T are summarized in Table 1. These relaxivity results also were in reasonable agreement with literature values 28,29,31 . DC-MRF was also used to obtain T1 and T2 relaxation times for the deionized water sample with no contrast agent (T1 0 = 2897 ms; T2 0 = 946 ms).…”

Section: T Dc-mrf: Simultaneous Assessment Of Two Paramagnetic Mri Cosupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dual Contrast - Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DC-MRF): A Platform for Simultaneous Quantification of Multiple MRI Contrast Agents

Anderson

Donnola

Jiang

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injectable Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contrast agents have been widely used to provide critical assessments of disease for both clinical and basic science imaging research studies. The scope of available MRI contrast agents has expanded over the years with the emergence of molecular imaging contrast agents specifically targeted to biological markers. Unfortunately, synergistic application of more than a single molecular contrast agent has been limited by MRI's ability to only dynamically measure a single agent at a time. In this study, a new Dual Contrast -Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DC -MRF) methodology is described that can detect and independently quantify the local concentration of multiple MRI contrast agents following simultaneous administration. This "multi-color" MRI methodology provides the opportunity to monitor multiple molecular species simultaneously and provides a practical, quantitative imaging framework for the eventual clinical translation of molecular imaging contrast agents.Over the past 3 decades, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has become an essential medical imaging modality due to its exceptional soft tissue contrast and lack of ionizing radiation. Along with a wide variety of endogenous tissue contrast mechanisms, many MRI applications utilize an intravenous injection of an MRI contrast agent (e.g., gadolinium chelates or iron oxides) to enable sensitive identification of numerous pathologies such as tumors 1 , vascular abnormalities 2 , and cardiac infarcts 3 through local alterations in the tissue's magnetic properties (T1 and T2 relaxation times). Clinical use of these contrast-enhanced MRI scans has further expanded as multiple contrast agents have been approved for specific clinical imaging applications (e.g., blood pool contrast agents 4 , hepatobiliary contrast agents 5 ).With the emergence of the field of molecular imaging, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of MRI contrast agents targeted to proteins 6-8 , cell receptors 9, 10 , and other molecular species 11,12 . In addition, a number of activatable agents have been described that have different relaxivities based on the local tissue environment in vivo 13,14 . In a typical preclinical molecular MRI study, the T1 or T2 relaxation time (or MRI signal intensity) is

show abstract

Section: T Dc-mrf: Simultaneous Assessment Of Two Paramagnetic Mri Cosupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The mean T1 and T2 relaxation times for the deionized water phantom with no contrast agent (deionized water alone) were 4250 ms (T1 0 ) and 2760 ms (T2 0 ), respectively. NMR relaxivity measurements are in reasonable agreement with previously reported results for both the Gd 28 and Mn 29,30 contrast agents used here.…”

supporting

confidence: 91%

Dual Contrast - Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DC-MRF): A Platform for Simultaneous Quantification of Multiple MRI Contrast Agents

Anderson

Donnola

Jiang

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In view of enhancement effects, the T 1 relaxivity of Gd-EOB-DTPA measured in human blood at 1.5 T is double that of standard gadolinium chelates (21), but the dose of Gd-EOB-DTPA is one fourth (0.025 mmol/kg of Gd-EOB-DTPA vs. 0.1 mmol/kg of Gd-DTPA). Therefore, it will be expected that the enhancement effect of Gd-EOB-DTPA in the arterial phase of solid organs and vessels may be about half that of Gd-DTPA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal solid organ and major vessel: Comparison of enhancement effect between Gd‐EOB‐DTPA and Gd‐DTPA

Tamada

Ito

Sone

et al. 2009

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate the differences in enhancement of the abdominal solid organ and the major vessel on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) obtained with gadolinium ethoxybenzyldiethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA: EOB) and gadolinium diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) in the same patients. Materials and Methods:A total of 13 healthy volunteers underwent repeat assessments of abdominal MR examinations with DCE-MRI using either Gd-DTPA at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight or EOB at a dose of 0.025 mmol/kg body weight. DCE images were obtained at precontrast injection and in the arterial phase (AP: 25 seconds), portal phase (PP: 70 seconds), and equilibrium phase (EP: 3 minutes). The signal intensities (SIs) of liver at AP, PP, and EP; the SIs of spleen, renal cortex, renal medulla, pancreas, adrenal gland, aorta at AP; and the SIs of portal vein and inferior vena cava (IVC) at PP were defined using region-ofinterest measurements, and were used for calculation of signal intensity ratio (SIR). There was no significant difference in mean SIR of liver at PP between EOB (0.529 Ϯ 0.124) and Gd-DTPA (0.564 Ϯ 0.139). Conversely, the mean SIR of liver at EP was significantly higher with EOB (0.576 Ϯ 0.167) than with Gd-DTPA (0.396 Ϯ 0.093) (P Ͻ 0.001). Results Conclusion:Lower arterial vascular and parenchymal enhancement with Gd-EOB, as compared with Gd-DTPA, may require reassessment of its dose, despite the higher late venous phase liver parenchymal enhancement.

show abstract

“…The contrast agent gadobenate-dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) demonstrates weak and transient interactions with serum proteins, causing slowing of the molecular tumbling dynamics, resulting in strong increases in the magnetic relaxivity in solutions containing serum proteins, particularly albumin (13,14). Compared to gadopentetate-dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA), in human plasma relaxivity is increased significantly (14,15), which has proven useful for performing, eg, MR angiography of the renal arteries (16).…”

Section: Magneticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Gd‐DTPA and Gd‐BOPTA for studying renal perfusion and filtration

Notohamiprodjo

Pedersen

Gläser

et al. 2011

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To measure the systematic error in perfusion and filtration parameters derived from magnetic resonance (MR) renography caused by protein binding of MR contrast agents. Materials and Methods:Eight healthy Danish Landrace pigs were examined with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). In four pigs a bolus of gadopentetate-dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA; no protein binding) was injected, followed by gadobenate-dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA; 10% protein binding). The order was reversed in the other four pigs. A two-compartment filtration model was generalized to allow for protein binding and fitted to whole-cortex region of interest (ROI) curves. Single-kidney plasma flow and volume, tubular flow (or GFR), and tubular transit time of both agents were compared. Results:The data show a strong systematic underestimation (P < 0.001) in GFR by Gd-BOPTA (33 6 7.2%), and no significant differences (P > 0.05) in plasma flow (2.2 6 18%), plasma volume (À1.7 6 7.8%) and tubular transit time (3.1 6 7.2%). The order of injection had no significant effect. Conclusion:Theory and experiments agree that perfusion parameters of both agents are comparable, whereas GFR is underestimated with Gd-BOPTA due to the dependence of relaxivity on protein content. Hence, GFR cannot be measured with protein-bound contrast agents, but the proposed dual-agent protocol may produce new functional indices measuring protein filtration.

show abstract

Comparison of Magnetic Properties of MRI Contrast Media Solutions at Different Magnetic Field Strengths

Cited by 1,479 publications

References 42 publications

Dual Contrast - Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DC-MRF): A Platform for Simultaneous Quantification of Multiple MRI Contrast Agents

Dual Contrast - Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DC-MRF): A Platform for Simultaneous Quantification of Multiple MRI Contrast Agents

Dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal solid organ and major vessel: Comparison of enhancement effect between Gd‐EOB‐DTPA and Gd‐DTPA

Comparison of Gd‐DTPA and Gd‐BOPTA for studying renal perfusion and filtration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About