BIODISTRIBUTION AND TOXICITY OF MR IMAGING CONTRAST-MEDIA

被引:102
作者
OKSENDAL, AN
HALS, PA
机构
[1] Nycomed Imaging As, Oslo, N-0401, PO Box 4220 Torshov
来源
JMRI-JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING | 1993年 / 3卷 / 01期
关键词
CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST MEDIA; TOXICITY; GADOLINIUM; IRON; MANGANESE; SAFETY;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.1880030128
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
SIGNAL INTENSITY on a magnetic resonance image is mainly determined by proton density and T1 and T2. Image contrast, described as the difference in signal intensity between two tissues, is dependent on a number of physical parameters and can be altered by changing these parameters. Contrast agents are pharmaceuticals that can accentuate the difference in signal intensity between two adjacent tissue compartments by directly interfering with the proton relaxation times in one more than in the other. Such agents are designed with the purpose of improving image contrast between normal and abnormal tissues and may enhance the contrast positively or negatively, depending on their relative T1, T2, or T2* effects. Effective MR imaging contrast agents include paramagnetic (metal ions such as gadolinium. manganese, dysprosium, iron; free radicals; nitrous oxides), magnetic (superparamagnetic or ferromagnetic iron oxide particles), or diamagnetic (substances that displace hydrogen nuclei such as gases, deuterated water, perfluorocarbons) materials. The clinical effect of an MR imaging contrast medium is determined not only by the contrast-enhancing properties of the compound but also by its pharmacokinetic properties, which determine where the agent is distributed in the body and the length of time adequate concentrations are maintained in target organs. Furthermore, it is of crucial importance that the drug be well tolerated when given in doses necessary to achieve the clinical effect.
引用
收藏
页码:157 / 165
页数:9
相关论文
共 67 条
  • [41] Elizondo G, Fretz CJ, Stark DD, Et al., Preclinical evaluation of MnDPDP: new paramagnetic hepatobiliary contrast agent for MR imaging, Radiology, 178, pp. 73-78, (1991)
  • [42] Maynard LS, Cotzias GC, The partition of manganese among organs and intracellular organelles of the rat, J Biol Chem, 214, pp. 489-495, (1955)
  • [43] Wolf GL, Baum L, Cardiovascular toxicity and tissue proton T<sub>1</sub> response to manganese injection in the dog and rabbit, AJR, 141, pp. 193-197, (1983)
  • [44] Witzleben CKL, Manganese‐induced cholestasis: concurrent observations on bile flow‐rate and hepatic ultrastruc‐ture, Am J Pathol, 57, pp. 617-625, (1969)
  • [45] Mena J, Meurin O, Feunzoba S, Cotzias GC, Chronic manganese poisoning: clinical picture and manganese turnover, Neurology, 17, pp. 128-136, (1967)
  • [46] Hamm B, Vogl TJ, Branding G, Et al., Focal liver lesion: MR imaging with Mn‐DPDP — initial clinical results in 40 patients, Radiology, 182, pp. 167-174, (1992)
  • [47] Bernardino ME, Young SW, Lee JKT, Weinreb JC, Hepatic MR imaging with Mn‐DPDP: safety, image quality, and sensitivity, Radiology, 183, pp. 53-58, (1992)
  • [48] Gehl HB, Vorwerk D, Klose KC, Gunther RW, Pancreatic enhancement after low‐dose infusion of Mn‐DPDP, Radiology, 180, pp. 337-339, (1991)
  • [49] Weissleder R, Papisov M, Pharmaceutical iron oxides for MR imaging, Rev Magn Reson Med, 4, pp. 1-20, (1992)
  • [50] Fahlvik AK, Holtz E, Leander P, Et al., Magnetic starch mi‐crospheres, efficacy and elimination: a new organ‐specific contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging, Invest Radiol, 5, pp. 113-120, (1990)