Prospective Blinded Evaluation of Gd-DOTA– versus Gd-BOPTA–enhanced Peripheral MR Angiography, as Compared with Digital Subtraction Angiography

Wyttenbach, Rolf; Gianella, Sara; Alerci, Mario; Braghetti, Antonio; Cozzi, Luca; Gallino, Augusto

doi:10.1148/radiol.2271011989

Cited by 68 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of particular relevance for routine practice were the low technical failure rate and improved image quality in the calves. Similar fi ndings have been noted by Knopp et al ( 28 ) and Wyttenbach et al ( 29 ), despite the higher dose used in the latter study. In terms of diagnostic performance, a recent multicenter Phase III study that used a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine revealed diagnostic accuracy values of 85.0%-87.5% in the iliofemoral arteries and 74.5%-77.5% in the calf arteries ( 34 ).…”

Section: Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Contrast Materials Comsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Given that the quality of calf vessel visualization in our study was poor in signifi cantly more patients after 0.1 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine than after 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine, it is possible that worse overall results might have been obtained in these other studies had below-knee vessels been included in the assessment. More importantly, the comparatively poor quality of vessel visualization with gadopentetate dimeglumine in our study and elsewhere ( 28,29 ), particularly for below-knee arteries, would necessitate a repeat examination with associated increased costs.…”

Section: Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Contrast Materials Commentioning

confidence: 69%

“…On the one hand, an interindividual study design is subject to variability between study groups, which may have affected (40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46) have similarly revealed improved performance with gadobenate dimeglumine when comparisons are performed at equivalent dose levels. Interestingly however, Wyttenbach et al ( 29 ) noted few differences between gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoterate meglumine for assessment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease from the respectively ( 8 ). In that study, the poor diagnostic performance with both contrast agents was attributed to the relatively low doses administered.…”

Section: Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Contrast Materials Commentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Previously, a comparison of equivalent 0.1-mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist; Bayer-Schering, Berlin, Germany) in healthy volunteers revealed superior vascular enhancement with gadobenate dimeglumine, particularly in smaller, more distal vessels ( 28 ). Improved diagnostic performance with gadobenate dimeglumine for below-knee segments was subsequently shown by Wyttenbach et al ( 29 ) in a comparison with gadoterate meglumine. However, Wyttenbach et al administered a standard volume of 34 mL, which corresponds to a high dose of almost 0.25 mmol/kg for a 70-kg person.…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of Peripheral Arteries

Gerretsen¹,

Maire²,

Miller³

et al. 2010

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To prospectively compare the image quality and diagnostic performance achieved with doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine of 0.1 mmol per kilogram of body weight in patients undergoing contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography of the pelvis, thigh, and lowerleg (excluding foot) for suspected or known peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Materials and Methods:Institutional review board approval was granted from each center and informed written consent was obtained from all patients. Between November 2006 and January 2008, 96 patients (62 men, 34 women; mean age, 63.7 years 6 10.4 [standard deviation]; range, 39-86 years) underwent two identical examinations at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences and randomized 0.1-mmol/kg doses of each agent. Images were evaluated on-site for technical adequacy and quality of vessel visualization and offsite by three independent blinded readers for anatomic delineation and detection/exclusion of pathologic features. Comparative diagnostic performance was determined in 31 patients who underwent digital subtraction angiography. Data were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar, and Wald tests. Interreader agreement was determined by using generalized k statistics. Differences in quantitative contrast enhancement were assessed and a safety evaluation was performed. Results:Ninety-two patients received both agents. Signifi cantly better performance ( P , .0001; all evaluations) with gadobenate dimeglumine was noted on-site for technical adequacy and vessel visualization quality and offsite for anatomic delineation and detection/exclusion of pathologic features. Contrast enhancement ( P Յ .0001) and detection of clinically relevant disease ( P Յ .0028) were signifi cantly improved with gadobenate dimeglumine. Interreader agreement for stenosis detection and grading was good to excellent ( k = 0.749 and 0.805, respectively). Mild adverse events were reported for four (six events) and fi ve (eight events) patients after gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively. Conclusion:Higher-quality vessel visualization, greater contrast enhancement, fewer technical failures, and improved diagnostic performance are obtained with gadobenate dimeglumine, relative to gadopentetate dimeglumine, when compared intraindividually at 0.1-mmol/kg doses in patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MR angiography for suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease.q RSNA, 2010

show abstract

Section: Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Contrast Materials Comsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Contrast Materials Commentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Contrast Materials Commentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of Peripheral Arteries

Gerretsen¹,

Maire²,

Miller³

et al. 2010

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2), which was also observed in other studies [14,17,22]. However, Gd-Dota revealed at least equal image quality with even significantly better arterial visualization-even though with lower SI and CNR values.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Total-body contrast-enhanced MRA on a short, wide-bore 1.5-T system: intra-individual comparison of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DOTA

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total-body contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) provides information of the entire vascular system according to a one-stop-shop approach. Short, wide-bore scanners have not yet been used for total-body CE-MRA, probably due to their restricted field of view in the z-direction. The purpose of this feasibility study is to introduce an image protocol for total-body MRA on a short, wide-bore system. The protocol includes five to six table-moving steps and two injection runs. Two pharmacologically different contrast materials (CM) were applied in ten healthy volunteers in view of possible CM-dependent influences on the protocol outcome (Gd-Bopta, Gd-Dota). Differences consisted of significantly higher CNR with Gd-Bopta with a mean of 73.8+/-38.7 versus 69.1+/-34.3 (p=0.008), significantly better arterial visualization values with Gd-Dota with a mean of 1.26+/-0.44 versus 1.53+/-0.73 (p=0.003) and a tendency to less venous overlay with Gd-Dota, mean 1.19+/-0.44 and 1.34+/-0.72, respectively (p=0.065) (two-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs test). Overall 94% of the steps were valued as qualitatively excellent or good. The good results with both CM suggest a transfer to further patient evaluation.

show abstract

Gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MR angiography: Diagnostic performance of four doses for detection and grading of carotid, renal, and aorto‐iliac stenoses compared to digital subtraction angiography

Schneider¹,

Ballarati²,

Grazioli³

et al. 2007

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To determine the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) with four doses of gadobenate dimeglumine for detection of significant steno-occlusive disease of the carotid, renal, and pelvic vasculature. Materials and Methods:Eighty-four patients with suspected disease of the renal (n ϭ 16), pelvic (n ϭ 41), or carotid (n ϭ 27) arteries underwent CE-MRA (3D-spoiled gradient-echo sequences) at 1.5T. CE-MRA was performed with gadobenate dimeglumine at 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mmol/kg (23,24,19, and 18 patients, respectively) administered at 2 mL/sec. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) for detection of significant disease (Ͼ50% stenosis or occlusion for renal/pelvic arteries; Ͼ70% stenosis or occlusion for carotid arteries) was determined by three fully blinded, independent radiologists using conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as reference standard. All comparisons were tested statistically (ANOVA, chi-square, and Mantel-Haenszel tests as appropriate) and reader agreement (kappa) was assessed.Results: Values for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV on CE-MRA were consistently higher for 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine (accuracy ϭ 95.2-97.3%, sensitivity ϭ 84.2% (all readers), specificity ϭ 96.9 -99.2%, PPV ϭ 80.0 -94.1%, NPV ϭ 97.6 -97.7%). The greater accuracy of the 0.1 mmol/kg dose was significant (P Ͻ 0.01, all readers) compared to all other dose groups. Agreement between the three readers was good for all dose groups (kappa Ն0.58), with the highest percent agreement (85.7%) noted for the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Conclusion:Significantly better diagnostic performance on CE-MRA of the renal, pelvic, and carotid arteries is achieved with a gadobenate dimeglumine dose of 0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight.

show abstract

Prospective Blinded Evaluation of Gd-DOTA– versus Gd-BOPTA–enhanced Peripheral MR Angiography, as Compared with Digital Subtraction Angiography

Cited by 68 publications

References 23 publications

Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of Peripheral Arteries

Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of Peripheral Arteries

Total-body contrast-enhanced MRA on a short, wide-bore 1.5-T system: intra-individual comparison of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DOTA

Gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MR angiography: Diagnostic performance of four doses for detection and grading of carotid, renal, and aorto‐iliac stenoses compared to digital subtraction angiography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About