Premium
Comparison of 0.5‐M Gd‐DTPA with 1.0‐M gadobutrol for magnetic resonance angiography of the supplying arteries of the spinal cord in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm patients
Author(s) -
Nijenhuis Robbert J.,
Gerretsen Suzanne,
Leiner Tim,
Jacobs Michael J.,
van Engelshoven Jos M.A.,
Backes Walter H.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.20340
Subject(s) - gadobutrol , medicine , spinal cord , magnetic resonance angiography , magnetic resonance imaging , radiology , aorta , angiography , artery , nuclear medicine , surgery , psychiatry
Purpose To prospectively compare 0.5‐M gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd‐DTPA) with 1.0‐M gadobutrol for contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE‐MRA) of the blood supplying arteries of the spinal cord in patients referred for open surgical repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). Materials and Methods A total of 11 patients with a TAAA underwent two three‐dimensional CE‐MRA exams of the aorta, segmental arteries (SAs), artery of Adamkiewicz (AKA), and anterior spinal artery (ASA). Imaging was performed on two separate occasions using Gd‐DTPA and gadobutrol as contrast agents at 0.3 mmol/kg. Images were evaluated by measuring signal‐to‐noise (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise (CNR) ratios and were judged for different image quality criteria by two blinded observers. Results In all patients both CE‐MRA exams were of sufficient image quality to detect the AKA and ASA. No significant differences in SNR and CNR were observed between the two contrast agents. According to the observers, no significant differences in subjective image quality were found. Conclusions Using both contrast agents it was possible to visualize the ultrasmall spinal cord arteries in all cases. The use of the 1.0‐M contrast agent did not improve image quality of CE‐MRA images of the blood supplying arteries of the spinal cord compared to the 0.5‐M contrast agent. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2005;22:136–144. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.