4.6 Article

Comparison of the Relaxivities of Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Human Plasma at 1.5, 3, and 7 T, and Blood at 3 T

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 559-564

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000577

关键词

gadolinium-based contrast agents; GBCA; macrocyclic complexes; relaxivity; T1 relaxation times

资金

  1. Vienna Science and Technology Fund [WWTF-LS11-018]
  2. Austrian Science Fund [FWF KLI541-B30]
  3. Slovak Grant Agency [APVV-15-0029]
  4. Bayer AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The relaxivities of 3 macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) were determined in human plasma and blood under standardized and clinically relevant laboratory conditions. Methods The T1 relaxivity, r1, was determined in human plasma at 1.5, 3, and 7 T, and in human blood at 3 T at 37 degrees C in phantoms containing 4 different concentrations of the macrocyclic GBCAs gadobutrol, gadoteridol, and gadoterate. An inversion recovery turbo spin echo sequence was used to generate images with several inversion times. The T1-times were obtained by fitting the signal intensities to the signal equation. r1 was obtained by a 1/y-weighted regression of the T1-rates over the concentration of the GBCAs. Results For gadobutrol, the obtained r1 [L/(mmol center dot s)] in human plasma at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T, and in human blood at 3 T was 4.78 +/- 0.12, 4.97 +/- 0.59, 3.83 +/- 0.24, and 3.47 +/- 0.16. For gadoteridol, r1 was 3.80 +/- 0.10, 3.28 +/- 0.09, 3.21 +/- 0.07, and 2.61 +/- 0.16, and for gadoterate, 3.32 +/- 0.13, 3.00 +/- 0.13, 2.84 +/- 0.09, and 2.72 +/- 0.17. Conclusions The relaxivity of gadobutrol is significantly higher than that of gadoteridol and gadoterate at all magnetic field strengths and in plasma as well as in blood, whereas that of gadoteridol was higher than gadoterate only in plasma at 1.5 and 7 T. This is in accordance with results from 3 previous studies obtained in different media.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据