2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetic resonance VIBE venography using the blood pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium—An interrater reliability study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To determine the regional difference of mean PBF, PBV and MTT in the gravitational direction, all slices were divided into three groups as follows: ventral (slices 1-10), middle (slices [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] and dorsal (slices 30-40, Fig. 3b).…”
Section: Perfusion Quantification Using Contrast-enhanced Perfusion Mrimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To determine the regional difference of mean PBF, PBV and MTT in the gravitational direction, all slices were divided into three groups as follows: ventral (slices 1-10), middle (slices [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] and dorsal (slices 30-40, Fig. 3b).…”
Section: Perfusion Quantification Using Contrast-enhanced Perfusion Mrimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…they rapidly diffuse into the parenchyma. The recently introduced blood pool MR contrast agent, gadofosveset [18,19], remains longer in the intravascular circulation with no parenchymal extravasate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It improves sensitivity for small hepatic metastases and helps provide a specific diagnosis of fibronodular dysplasia in cases where extracellular agents are not diagnostic (Fig 8) (88). Blood pool contrast agents (eg, gadofosveset trisodium), which persist in the circulation far longer than extracellular agents, allow for steady-state vascular imaging with very high spatial resolution (89), excel for venography (90), and have been applied for various other applications such as the evaluation of congenital heart disease (91).…”
Section: S189mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, ultrasound (US) has now become the modality of choice in clinical practice for the evaluation of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), with advantages in cost effectiveness, noninvasiveness, and portability in critically ill patients (1). However, key limitations of US exist, and include decreased sensitivity due to body habitus or edema, individual operator dependence (2), and difficulty in evaluation of calf veins and recurrent or chronic DVT (3). Ultrasound is also technically unable to evaluate the abdominopelvic deep venous system or the pulmonary arterial system (4), limiting its use in the workup of patients with venous thromboembolism at other sites.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%