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

Carsten W.K.P. Arnoldussen, Yeelai Lam, Nobutake Ito, Bjorn Winkens, M. Eline Kooi, Cees H.A. Wittens, Joachim E. Wildberger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: 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. Materials: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Key Points: • High-quality MRV can be performed with a regular gadolinium-based contrast agent. • Ultra-fast GRE vs. HR-FFE MRV: equally suitable for evaluation of venous obstruction. • Regular gadolinium-based contrast agent can supersede a bloodpool contrast agent for MRV. • Equal confidence for gadobutrol vs gadofosveset-trisodium in MRV. • MRV accessible for routine daily practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4986-4994
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume27
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Dec 1

Fingerprint

Phlebography
Contrast Media
Lower Extremity
Gadolinium
gadofosveset trisodium
gadobutrol
Noise
Body Mass Index
Prospective Studies
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Chronic venous disease
  • Chronic venous obstruction
  • MR venography
  • MRI
  • Venous

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Arnoldussen, C. W. K. P., Lam, Y., Ito, N., Winkens, B., Kooi, M. E., Wittens, C. H. A., & Wildberger, J. E. (2017). Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities. European Radiology, 27(12), 4986-4994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4902-0

Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities. / Arnoldussen, Carsten W.K.P.; Lam, Yeelai; Ito, Nobutake; Winkens, Bjorn; Kooi, M. Eline; Wittens, Cees H.A.; Wildberger, Joachim E.

In: European Radiology, Vol. 27, No. 12, 01.12.2017, p. 4986-4994.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Arnoldussen, CWKP, Lam, Y, Ito, N, Winkens, B, Kooi, ME, Wittens, CHA & Wildberger, JE 2017, 'Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities', European Radiology, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 4986-4994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4902-0
Arnoldussen, Carsten W.K.P. ; Lam, Yeelai ; Ito, Nobutake ; Winkens, Bjorn ; Kooi, M. Eline ; Wittens, Cees H.A. ; Wildberger, Joachim E. / Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities. In: European Radiology. 2017 ; Vol. 27, No. 12. pp. 4986-4994.
@article{14a7a143601046a381a55e820f81503d,
title = "Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities",
abstract = "Objectives: 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. Materials: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Key Points: • High-quality MRV can be performed with a regular gadolinium-based contrast agent. • Ultra-fast GRE vs. HR-FFE MRV: equally suitable for evaluation of venous obstruction. • Regular gadolinium-based contrast agent can supersede a bloodpool contrast agent for MRV. • Equal confidence for gadobutrol vs gadofosveset-trisodium in MRV. • MRV accessible for routine daily practice.",
keywords = "Chronic venous disease, Chronic venous obstruction, MR venography, MRI, Venous",
author = "Arnoldussen, {Carsten W.K.P.} and Yeelai Lam and Nobutake Ito and Bjorn Winkens and Kooi, {M. Eline} and Wittens, {Cees H.A.} and Wildberger, {Joachim E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00330-017-4902-0",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "4986--4994",
journal = "European Radiology",
issn = "0938-7994",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities

AU - Arnoldussen, Carsten W.K.P.

AU - Lam, Yeelai

AU - Ito, Nobutake

AU - Winkens, Bjorn

AU - Kooi, M. Eline

AU - Wittens, Cees H.A.

AU - Wildberger, Joachim E.

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Objectives: 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. Materials: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Key Points: • High-quality MRV can be performed with a regular gadolinium-based contrast agent. • Ultra-fast GRE vs. HR-FFE MRV: equally suitable for evaluation of venous obstruction. • Regular gadolinium-based contrast agent can supersede a bloodpool contrast agent for MRV. • Equal confidence for gadobutrol vs gadofosveset-trisodium in MRV. • MRV accessible for routine daily practice.

AB - Objectives: 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. Materials: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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. Key Points: • High-quality MRV can be performed with a regular gadolinium-based contrast agent. • Ultra-fast GRE vs. HR-FFE MRV: equally suitable for evaluation of venous obstruction. • Regular gadolinium-based contrast agent can supersede a bloodpool contrast agent for MRV. • Equal confidence for gadobutrol vs gadofosveset-trisodium in MRV. • MRV accessible for routine daily practice.

KW - Chronic venous disease

KW - Chronic venous obstruction

KW - MR venography

KW - MRI

KW - Venous

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021796908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021796908&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-017-4902-0

DO - 10.1007/s00330-017-4902-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 28674964

AN - SCOPUS:85021796908

VL - 27

SP - 4986

EP - 4994

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

SN - 0938-7994

IS - 12

ER -