MR angiography of the renal arteries: Intraindividual comparison of double-dose contrast enhancement at 1.5 T with standard dose at 3 T

被引:7
作者
Herborn, Christoph U. [1 ,2 ]
Runge, Val M. [2 ]
Watkins, David M. [2 ]
Gendron, Jilene M. [2 ]
Naul, L. Gill [2 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Ctr Hamburg, Med Prevent Ctr, D-20251 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Scott & White Mem Hosp & Clin, Dept Radiol, Temple, TX USA
关键词
high magnetic field strength; MR angiography; renal arterial stenosis;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.07.2486
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
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare prospectively and within subjects use of 0.1 mmol/kg of gadodiamide at 3 T with use of 0.2 mmol/kg of gadodiamide at 1.5 T for MR angiography of the renal arteries. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Twenty-two patients ( 14 men, eight women; mean age, 66.5 years) underwent two MR angiographic examinations of the renal arteries separated by at least 24 hours on whole-body 1.5- and 3-T MRI systems with a phase-encoded 3D spoiled breath-hold pulse sequence. Two radiologists blinded to the dose of contrast material assessed all image data in consensus for renal arterial disease and for image quality on a five-point Lik-ert-type scale. Quantitative evaluation ( vessel signal-to-noise ratio and vessel-muscle contrast-to-noise ratio) was performed by a third radiologist. RESULTS. Five renal arterial stenoses were detected with both techniques. The difference in mean image quality for the two doses and field strengths was not statistically significant. Overall vessel length and intraparenchymal branches, however, were better visualized with the double dose at 1.5 T. Signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios were significantly higher (both, p < 0.05) with the double dose at 1.5 T ( 125.7 and 64.2, respectively) compared with the standard dose at 3 T (112.3 and 59.7). CONCLUSION. MR angiography can be performed with high diagnostic image quality at 3 T with 0.1 mmol/kg of gadodiamide. Signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios are higher with a double dose at 1.5 T.
引用
收藏
页码:173 / 177
页数:5
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Contrast medium extravasation injury:: guidelines for prevention and management [J].
Bellin, MF ;
Jakobsen, JÅ ;
Tomassin, I ;
Thomsen, HS ;
Morcos, SK .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (11) :2807-2812
[2]  
Blaimer M, 2004, TOP MAGN RESON IMAG, V15, P233
[3]   Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: Why radiologists should be concerned [J].
Broome, Dale R. ;
Girguis, Mark S. ;
Baron, Pedro W. ;
Cottrell, Alfred C. ;
Kjellin, Ingrid ;
Kirk, Gerald A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 188 (02) :586-592
[4]   Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: An update [J].
Cowper S.E. ;
Boyer P.J. .
Current Rheumatology Reports, 2006, 8 (2) :151-157
[5]   MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: Preliminary results [J].
de Bazelaire, CMJ ;
Duhamel, GD ;
Rofsky, NM ;
Alsop, DC .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 230 (03) :652-659
[6]   Renal arterial stenosis: Prospective comparison of color Doppler US and breath-hold, three-dimensional, dynamic, gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography [J].
De Cobelli, F ;
Venturini, M ;
Vanzulli, A ;
Sironi, S ;
Salvioni, M ;
Angeli, E ;
Scifo, P ;
Garancini, MP ;
Quartagno, R ;
Bianchi, G ;
Del Maschio, A .
RADIOLOGY, 2000, 214 (02) :373-380
[7]  
Elster A D, 1997, Eur Radiol, V7 Suppl 5, P276
[8]   Comparison of longitudinal metabolite relaxation times in different regions of the human brain at 1.5 and 3 Tesla [J].
Ethofer, T ;
Mader, I ;
Seeger, U ;
Helms, G ;
Erb, M ;
Grodd, W ;
Ludolph, A ;
Klose, U .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2003, 50 (06) :1296-1301
[9]   Renal magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla using a 32-element phased-array coil system and parallel imaging in 2 directions [J].
Fenchel, Michael ;
Nael, Kambiz ;
Deshpande, Vibhas S. ;
Finn, J. Paul ;
Kramer, Ulrich ;
Miller, Stephan ;
Ruehm, Stefan ;
Laub, Gerhard .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (09) :697-703
[10]   Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy) [J].
Galan, Anjela ;
Cowper, Shawn E. ;
Bucala, Richard .
CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY, 2006, 18 (06) :614-617