Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities

MR venography (MRV) protocols have used bloodpool contrast agents and long scan sequences to identify patients suitable for treatment and preoperatively. However, variable availability of bloodpool contrast agents, high costs and a need to shorten acquisition times for routine MR protocols hamper everyday practice. 20 patients (11 men; mean age 54 +/- 11.8 years; body mass index 23.6 +/- 2.5) were enrolled in this prospective study. An intra-individual comparison of image quality, interpretation and findings for two different contrast agents (regular gadolinium contrast agent gadobutrol vs. bloodpool contrast agent gadofosveset-trisodium) and two different scan protocols (long acquisition time protocol using a high-resolution fast field echo (FFE) sequence vs. short acquisition time protocol using an ultra-fast gradient echo (GE) sequence) were performed. Image quality (average of 4.94 vs. 4.92 on a five-point scale), interpretation and contrast-to-noise ratio (44 vs. 45) were equal for both contrast agents. Image findings showed no statistical significant differences between the MR protocols or contrast agents (overall p = 0.328). For high-resolution MRV, it is possible to replace gadofosveset-trisodium with gadobutrol. Furthermore, an ultra-fast GE sequence for MRV might considerably shorten acquisition time, without loss of image quality or diagnostic yield. aEuro cent High-quality MRV can be performed with a regular gadolinium-based contrast agent. aEuro cent Ultra-fast GRE vs. HR-FFE MRV: equally suitable for evaluation of venous obstruction. aEuro cent Regular gadolinium-based contrast agent can supersede a bloodpool contrast agent for MRV. aEuro cent Equal confidence for gadobutrol vs gadofosveset-trisodium in MRV. aEuro cent MRV accessible for routine daily practice.