Multicenter, Intraindividual Comparison of Single-Dose Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Double-Dose Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of the Supra-Aortic Arteries (the Supra-Aortic VALUE Study)

Li, Yanjun; Li, X.; Li, D.; Lu, Jianping; Xing, Xiaoying; Yan, Fuhua; Li, Yuan; Wang, X.; Iezzi, Roberto; Cobelli, Francesco De

doi:10.3174/ajnr.a3298

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…50 These findings in the supra-aortic arteries are supported by the findings of numerous intraindividual crossover studies in other vascular territories. [81][82][83][84][85][86] It is reasonable to conclude that increased GBCA concentration (as seen in Gadavist) and significant increases in r1-relaxivities (to the magnitude seen with MultiHance) would each be beneficial for increased vascular signal intensity for CE-MRA, though the benefit obtained from higher concentrations may be accompanied by a concomitant shortening of the optimal image-acquisition timing window when both agents are injected at similar rates.…”

Section: Contrast-enhanced Mr Angiographysupporting

confidence: 73%

“…[49][50][51] In a very early study of 12 patients referred for CE-MRA of the carotid arteries, Pediconi et al 49 compared a single 0.1-mmol/kg dose of MultiHance with a double (0.2-mmol/kg) dose of Magnevist and found superior quantitative and qualitative enhancement with MultiHance for carotid time-resolved CE-MRA. Both doses of GBCAs were administered at a fixed rate of 2 mL/s, and the better imaging performance was ascribed to the higher r1 of MultiHance.…”

Section: Intraindividual Crossover Studies Comparing Gbcas For Ce-mramentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gadolinium Contrast Agents for CNS Imaging: Current Concepts and Clinical Evidence

Kanal

Maravilla

Rowley

2014

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:The aim of this article was to review the properties of the various gadolinium-based contrast agents used for CNS imaging along with the clinical evidence and published data that highlight the impact these different properties can have on diagnostic performance. In addition, approaches to optimizing image acquisition that take into account the different properties of specific gadoliniumbased contrast agents and an extensive review of the safety profiles of the various agents are presented. ABBREVIATIONS:CE ϭ contrast-enhanced; CNR ϭ contrast-to-noise ratio; GBCA ϭ gadolinium-based contrast agent; Gd ϭ gadolinium; NSF ϭ nephrogenic systemic fibrosis; rCBV ϭ relative cerebral blood volume; rCBF ϭ relative cerebral blood flow O f the 9 gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) approved by the United States FDA for contrast-enhanced (CE) MR imaging, 7 (gadoterate meglumine, Dotarem, Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France; gadobutrol, Gadavist, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Wayne, New Jersey; gadopentetate dimeglumine, Magnevist, Bayer HealthCare; gadobenate dimeglumine, MultiHance, Bracco Diagnostics, Princeton, New Jersey; gadodiamide, Omniscan, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; gadoversetamide, OptiMARK, Covidien, Dublin, Ireland; gadoteridol, ProHance, Bracco Diagnostics) are approved specifically for CE-MR imaging of the CNS. Although numerous studies published in high-ranking peerreviewed journals have confirmed the safety and efficacy of the 7 GBCAs approved for CNS imaging, differences among these agents and the impact these differences may have on diagnostic sensitivity and clinical decision-making remain underappreciated and sometimes misunderstood.The aim of this article was to review the properties of the various GBCAs used for CNS imaging together with the clinical evidence and published data that highlight the impact these different properties can have on diagnostic performance. In addition, approaches to optimizing image acquisition that take into account the different properties of specific GBCAs and an extensive review of the safety profiles of the various agents will be presented.For the purposes of the present review, brand names rather than chemical names have been used throughout to refer to the various GBCAs. Although chemical names would ordinarily be used in a review article such as this, it was thought that because the actual practitioners of MR imaging are typically more familiar with brand names than with chemical names, the use of brand names would help avoid the possibility of obfuscation and thereby enhance clarity in this field. Moreover, because generic formulations of these agents are not available in the United States, these brand names are clinically relevant designations. We have therefore elected to specifically use the same brand names for the various agents with which the reader will be most familiar. GBCAS: WHAT THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY DOAs a heavy metal in the lanthanide series, elemental free gadolinium (Gd) is toxic to humans. GBCAs are formed by chelation of gadolin...

show abstract

Section: Contrast-enhanced Mr Angiographysupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Intraindividual Crossover Studies Comparing Gbcas For Ce-mramentioning

confidence: 99%

Gadolinium Contrast Agents for CNS Imaging: Current Concepts and Clinical Evidence

Kanal

Maravilla

Rowley

2014

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This increased r1 relaxivity translates into increased signal intensity enhancement relative to that achieved with conventional gadolinium agents at equivalent dose [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Previous studies have shown that a single 0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight dose of gadobenate dimeglumine can fully replace a double 0.2 mmol/kg body weight dose of gadopentetate dimeglumine for specific MR imaging applications, including CE-MRA [13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: does a higher relaxivity MR contrast agent permit a reduction of the dose administered for routine vascular imaging applications?

Xing

Zeng

et al. 2014

Radiol med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have shown that a single Gd‐BOPTA dose can replace a double Gd‐DTPA dose for several MR applications. Gd‐BOPTA yielded qualitatively and quantitatively comparable diagnostic results compared with full‐dose Gd‐DTPA in several previous studies of the brain, heart, and vascular system …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Feasibility of using half‐dose Gd‐BOPTA for delayed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) at the knee, compared with standard‐dose Gd‐DTPA

Rehnitz

Klaan

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We sought to replace full-dose Gd-DTPA with safer and lower-dose contrast agents for delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC). Gd-BOPTA has a lower intrinsic nephrogenic systemic fibrosis risk and a 2-fold higher relaxivity at 3T; thus, the contrast agent dose may be halved, further reducing contrast agentdependent risks. Purpose: To compare the feasibility of using half-dose, high-relaxivity Gd-BOPTA vs. standard-dose Gd-DTPA for dGEMRIC. Study Type: Prospective observational study. Subjects: Eleven healthy volunteers (five women, mean age 25.7 years) and 10 patients with knee pain (three women, mean age 36.7 years; nine with chondromalacia). Field Strength/Sequences: 3D T 1 -weighted volumetric breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequence at 3T. Assessment: Knee dGEMRIC was performed twice, first using 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA and 4 weeks later using 0.2 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA. Contrast penetration was studied using pre-and 60-120-min postcontrast imaging in volunteers and pre-and 90-min postcontrast imaging in patients. Femoral cartilage lesions were assessed using modified whole-organ MRI scores. Healthy cartilage and partial-thickness lesions were compared using region-of-interest analyses by independent readers. Statistical Tests: Linear mixed-effect-models, area under receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) analysis, intraclass correlation (ICC). Results: In healthy volunteers, Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DTPA T 1 -values did not differ significantly at any timepoint (P = 0.164-0.995). In patients, Gd-BOPTA T 1 -values (743.33 AE 72.015 msec) were higher than Gd-DTPA T 1 -values (681.24 AE 67.635 msec, P = 0.030). Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DTPA detected chondromalacia areas equally well, with significantly lower T 1 -values than in healthy cartilage (P < 0.001) and nonsignificantly different AUCs (0.92 and 0.96, P = 0.27). The absolute decrease in T 1 -values between healthy and pathological cartilage was similar (Gd-BOPTA: 149.59 msec; Gd-DTPA: 149.44 msec, P = 0.99). ICCs were 0.83-0.98 for Gd-BOPTA and 0.80-0.98 for Gd-DTPA. Data Conclusion: Gd-BOPTA might be used at half the Gd-DTPA dose in dGEMRIC, with similar contrast penetration and T 1 -values in healthy cartilage and noninferior detection of cartilage damage. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5

show abstract

Multicenter, Intraindividual Comparison of Single-Dose Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Double-Dose Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of the Supra-Aortic Arteries (the Supra-Aortic VALUE Study)

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

Gadolinium Contrast Agents for CNS Imaging: Current Concepts and Clinical Evidence

Gadolinium Contrast Agents for CNS Imaging: Current Concepts and Clinical Evidence

Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: does a higher relaxivity MR contrast agent permit a reduction of the dose administered for routine vascular imaging applications?

Feasibility of using half‐dose Gd‐BOPTA for delayed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) at the knee, compared with standard‐dose Gd‐DTPA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About