Image quality of late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance with different doses of contrast material in patients with chronic myocardial infarction.
Aged
Chronic Disease
Cicatrix
/ diagnostic imaging
Contrast Media
/ administration & dosage
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction
/ diagnostic imaging
Organometallic Compounds
/ administration & dosage
Retrospective Studies
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Contrast media
Gadobutrol
Gadolinium
Magnetic resonance imaging
Myocardial infarction
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 04 2020
03 04 2020
Historique:
received:
07
11
2019
accepted:
21
02
2020
entrez:
4
4
2020
pubmed:
4
4
2020
medline:
5
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is pivotal for evaluating chronic myocardial infarction (CMI). Concerns about safety of gadolinium-based contrast agents favour dose reduction. We assessed image quality of scar tissue in CMRs performed with different doses of gadobutrol in CMI patients. Informed consent was waived for this Ethics Committee-approved single-centre retrospective study. Consecutive contrast-enhanced CMRs from CMI patients were retrospectively analysed according to the administered gadobutrol dose (group A, 0.10 mmol/kg; group B, 0.15 mmol/kg; group C, 0.20 mmol/kg). We calculated the signal-to-noise ratio for scar tissue (SNR Of 79 CMRs from 79 patients, 22 belonged to group A, 26 to group B, and 31 to group C. The groups were homogeneous for age, sex, left ventricular morpho-functional parameters, and percentage of scar tissue over whole myocardium (p ≥ 0.300). SNR Gadobutrol at 0.10 mmol/kg provides inferior scar image quality of CMI than 0.15 and 0.20 mmol/kg; the last two dosages seem to provide similar LGE. Thus, for CMR of CMI, 0.15 mmol/kg of gadobutrol can be suggested instead of 0.20 mmol/kg, with no hindrance to scar visualisation. Dose reduction would not impact on diagnostic utility of CMR examinations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is pivotal for evaluating chronic myocardial infarction (CMI). Concerns about safety of gadolinium-based contrast agents favour dose reduction. We assessed image quality of scar tissue in CMRs performed with different doses of gadobutrol in CMI patients.
METHODS
Informed consent was waived for this Ethics Committee-approved single-centre retrospective study. Consecutive contrast-enhanced CMRs from CMI patients were retrospectively analysed according to the administered gadobutrol dose (group A, 0.10 mmol/kg; group B, 0.15 mmol/kg; group C, 0.20 mmol/kg). We calculated the signal-to-noise ratio for scar tissue (SNR
RESULTS
Of 79 CMRs from 79 patients, 22 belonged to group A, 26 to group B, and 31 to group C. The groups were homogeneous for age, sex, left ventricular morpho-functional parameters, and percentage of scar tissue over whole myocardium (p ≥ 0.300). SNR
CONCLUSIONS
Gadobutrol at 0.10 mmol/kg provides inferior scar image quality of CMI than 0.15 and 0.20 mmol/kg; the last two dosages seem to provide similar LGE. Thus, for CMR of CMI, 0.15 mmol/kg of gadobutrol can be suggested instead of 0.20 mmol/kg, with no hindrance to scar visualisation. Dose reduction would not impact on diagnostic utility of CMR examinations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32242266
doi: 10.1186/s41747-020-00149-2
pii: 10.1186/s41747-020-00149-2
pmc: PMC7118177
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Organometallic Compounds
0
gadobutrol
1BJ477IO2L
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Aug;26(2):375-85
pubmed: 17622966
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Jul 18;19(1):52
pubmed: 28720123
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Feb;4(2):150-6
pubmed: 21329899
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 May;45(5):1429-1437
pubmed: 27690324
Radiographics. 2013 Sep-Oct;33(5):1383-412
pubmed: 24025931
Radiographics. 2006 May-Jun;26(3):795-810
pubmed: 16702455
Eur Radiol. 2013 Feb;23(2):307-18
pubmed: 22865271
Circ J. 2009 Sep;73(9):1577-88
pubmed: 19667487
Circulation. 2010 Jul 13;122(2):138-44
pubmed: 20585010
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017 Jan;19(1):9
pubmed: 28176279
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Mar;47(3):746-752
pubmed: 28730643
J Cardiol. 2015 Jan;65(1):76-81
pubmed: 24861912
Eur Heart J. 2016 Nov 7;37(42):3232-3245
pubmed: 27523477
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Aug 23;19(1):64
pubmed: 28835250
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Apr;49(4):1006-1019
pubmed: 30211445
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Sep;47(10):1345-1352
pubmed: 28526896
Invest Radiol. 2014 Nov;49(11):728-34
pubmed: 24872002
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Feb 29;14:18
pubmed: 22376193
Radiology. 2015 Jul;276(1):228-32
pubmed: 25942417
Radiology. 2005 Sep;236(3):1041-6
pubmed: 16055693
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Sep;36(3):529-42
pubmed: 22903654
Invest Radiol. 2012 Mar;47(3):183-8
pubmed: 22183078
Radiology. 1989 Oct;173(1):265-7
pubmed: 2781018
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Apr;198(4):809-16
pubmed: 22451545
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Aug 15;193:84-92
pubmed: 25661667
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Sep;38(9):1681-1688
pubmed: 28663267
Lab Invest. 1979 Jun;40(6):633-44
pubmed: 449273
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep;36(3):959-69
pubmed: 10987628
Heart. 2007 Mar;93(3):375-6
pubmed: 17322518