Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Mean signal-to-noise ratio (A) and contrast-to-noise ratio (B) after 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine and 0.2 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine as determined by 3 independent blinded readers.
- Fig. 2.
A 72-year-old male patient referred for MR imaging to guide revascularization of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The MIP image (A) acquired after 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine (8 mL injected at 0.8 mL/s) reveals severe stenosis in both the left and right subclavian arteries (open arrows) and a ≥60% stenosis (closed arrow) of the right carotid bifurcation/ICA. Similar findings are seen on the analogous MIP image (B) acquired after 0.2-mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine (16 mL injected at 1.6 mL/s). Selective DSA of the right carotid bifurcation/ICA (C) confirms the findings of the CE-MRA examinations after gadobenate dimeglumine (D) and gadopentetate dimeglumine (E). Note the sharper vessel delineation and greater contrast enhancement achieved with gadobenate dimeglumine.
- Fig. 3.
A 62-year-old male patient referred for MR imaging to guide revascularization of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The MIP image (A) acquired after 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine (12 mL injected at 1.2 mL/s) reveals occlusion of the right carotid bifurcation and right ICA (open arrow) and a ≥60% stenosis (closed arrow) of the left carotid bifurcation. Similar findings are seen on the analogous MIP image (B) acquired after 0.2-mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine (24 mL injected at 2.4 mL/s). There is no improvement in image quality or disease/vessel delineation with the higher dose of gadopentetate dimeglumine. DSA (C) confirms the findings of the MRA examinations.
Tables
Diagnostic Information End Point Reader Gadobenate Dimeglumine Preferred No Preference Gadopentetate Dimeglumine Preferred Significance (P Value) 3-Reader Agreement (%) Global diagnostic preference 1 2 (4.3%) 42 (91.3%) 2 (4.3%) 1.0 91.3 2 0 46 (100%) 0 N/A 3 0 46 (100%) 0 N/A Vessel anatomic delineation and visualization 1 2 (4.3%) 42 (91.3%) 2 (4.3%) 1.0 84.8 2 0 46 (100%) 0 N/A 3 2 (4.3%) 42 (91.3%) 2 (4.3%) 1.0 Delineation/exclusion of pathology 1 2 (4.3%) 43 (93.5%) 1 (2.2%) 1.0 84.8 2 0 46 (100%) 0 N/A 3 0 46 (100%) 0 N/A Note:—N/A indicates not applicable.
In this issue
