0.5 M Gd chelate (Magnevist®) versus 1.0 M Gd chelate (Gadovist®): Dose-independent effect on image quality of pelvic three-dimensional MR-angiography
To compare the effect on image quality of a 1.0 M gadolinium (Gd) chelate to that of a conventional 0.5 M Gd chelate, five healthy volunteers and seven patients with angiographically documented aorto‐iliac disease underwent a mono‐station three‐dimensional magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) exam (...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2001-11, Vol.14 (5), p.602-607 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To compare the effect on image quality of a 1.0 M gadolinium (Gd) chelate to that of a conventional 0.5 M Gd chelate, five healthy volunteers and seven patients with angiographically documented aorto‐iliac disease underwent a mono‐station three‐dimensional magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) exam (Siemens SONATA®, Erlangen, Germany) twice, once using Gadovist® 1.0 and the other time using Magnevist® as the contrast agent. All subjects received a fixed volume of Gadovist® 1.0, corresponding to a dose between 0.1 and 0.15 mmol/kg body weight followed by a saline flush. For the Magnevist® exam, the contrast agent volumes and flow rates were doubled. For both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the angiographic data sets, the arterial tree was divided into nine segments. 1 M Gadovist® 1.0‐enhanced three‐dimensional MRA data sets were characterized by significantly higher signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) values compared to 0.5 M Magnevist®‐enhanced images. The data revealed mean SNR/CNR increases exceeding 70% (P < 0.01). Although there was no statistically significant difference in the rating of image quality (P > 0.05), the Gadovist® 1.0 exam led to better delineation of the arterial morphology, especially of small vessels. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001;14:602–607. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1053-1807 1522-2586 |
DOI: | 10.1002/jmri.1225 |