Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Erly, W. K. Articles by Seeger, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Erly, W. K. Articles by Seeger, J.

Gadopentetate Dimeglumine as a Contrast Agent in Common Carotid Arteriography

William K. Erly^,a, Julie Zaetta^a, Guy T. Borders^a, Hasan Ozgur^a, Dina R. Gabaeff^a, Raymond F. Carmody^a and Joachim Seeger^a

^a From the Department of Radiology, The University of Arizona Health Science Center, 1501 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   FIG 1. Observer correlation in interpreting the degree of stenosis on studies obtained with gadolinium- and iodine-based contrast agents

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   FIG 2. Histogram shows observers' reasons for reduced quality of iodine- and gadolinium-based studies. AQ indicates adequacy of contrast; PP, patient positioning; SA, saturation artifact; PM, patient motion; O, other factors, including filming technique and misregistration due to calcified plaque

View larger version (159K): [in a new window]   FIG 3. A and B, Gadolinium- (A) and iodine-based (B) frontal projections of common carotid arteriogram. Although the depiction of vascular anatomy is equivalent, there is relatively decreased intravascular contrast on the gadolinium examination

View larger version (173K): [in a new window]   FIG 4. A and B, Gadolinium- (A) and iodine-based (B) common carotid arteriograms. Lateral injections are nearly identical, except that the gadolinium examination has increased graininess due to film contrast