|
Invest Radiol. 2012 Jun;47（6）:376-82. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182539554. Magnetic resonance evaluation of renal artery stenosis in a swine model: performance of low-dose gadobutrol versus gadoterate meglumine in comparison with digital subtraction intra-arterial catheter angiography. Morelli JN1, Runge VM, Ai F, Zhang W, Li X, Schmitt P, McNeal G, Miller M, Lennox M, Wusten O, Schoenberg SO, Attenberger UI. Author information Abstract PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare low-dose imaging with gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine （Gd-DOTA） for evaluation of renal artery stenosis with 3-T magnetic resonance angiography （MRA） in a swine model. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A total of 12 experimental animals were evaluated using equivalently dosed gadobutrol and Gd-DOTA for time-resolved and static imaging. For time-resolved imaging, the time-resolved imaging with stochastic trajectories （TWIST） technique （temporal footprint, 4.4 seconds） was used; a dose of 1 mL of gadobutrol was injected at 2 mL/s and a dose of 2 mL of Gd-DOTA was injected at both 2 and 4 mL/s. For a separate static acquisition, doses were doubled. The static scans were used for stenosis gradation and the time-resolved scans for comparison of enhancement dynamics, signal-to-noise ratio （SNR）, and qualitative assessments. RESULTS: The average magnitude of difference in the stenosis measurements with static gadobutrol scans relative to digital subtraction intra-arterial catheter angiography （mean [SD], 7.4% [5.6%]） was less than with both the 2 mL/s （10.6% [6.2%]） and 4 mL/s （11.5% [7.8%]） Gd-DOTA MRA protocols. On time-resolved scans, peak signal-to-noise ratio was greatest with the gadobutrol protocol （P < 0.05）, and the gadobutrol TWIST scan was preferred to the TWIST Gd-DOTA scan in terms of image quality and stenosis visualization in every case for every reader. CONCLUSION: Low-dose gadobutrol （~0.05 mmoL/kg） contrast-enhanced MRA results in improved accuracy of renal artery stenosis assessments relative to equivalently dosed Gd-DOTA at 3 T. PMID: 22543971 DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182539554 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
|
