Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadodiamide in the Evaluation of Spinal Vascular Anatomy with MR Angiography

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Krings T,
   2. Lasjaunias PL,
   3. Hans FJ,
   4. et al

   . Imaging in spinal vascular disease. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2007;17:57–72

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Backes WH,
   2. Nijenhuis RJ

   . Advances in spinal cord MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:619–31

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Hyodoh H,
   2. Kawaharada N,
   3. Akiba H,
   4. et al

   . Usefulness of preoperative detection of artery of Adamkiewicz with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 2005;236:1004–09

   PubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Saraf-Lavi E,
   2. Bowen BC,
   3. Quencer RM,
   4. et al

   . Detection of spinal dural arteriovenous fistulae with MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR angiography: sensitivity, specificity, and prediction of vertebral level. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:858–67

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Marckmann P,
   2. Skov L,
   3. Rossen K,
   4. et al

   . Case-control study of gadodiamide-related nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007;22:3174–78

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Perez-Rodriguez J,
   2. Lai S,
   3. Ehst BD,
   4. et al

   . Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: incidence, associations, and effect of risk factor assessment—report of 33 cases. Radiology 2009;250:371–77

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Runge VM,
   2. Parker JR,
   3. Donovan M

   . Double-blind, efficacy evaluation of gadobenate dimeglumine, a gadolinium chelate with enhanced relaxivity, in malignant lesions of the brain. Invest Radiol 2002;37:269–80

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Cavagna FM,
   2. Maggioni F,
   3. Castelli PM,
   4. et al

   . Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins: a new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1997;32:780–96

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. de Haen C,
   2. Cabrini M,
   3. Akhnana L,
   4. et al

   . Gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M solution for injection (MultiHance) pharmaceutical formulation and physicochemical properties of a new magnetic resonance imaging contrast medium. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23 (suppl 1):S161–68

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Catalano C,
    2. Pediconi F,
    3. Nardis P,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography with MultiHance for imaging the supra-aortic vessels. Eur Radiol 2004;14 (suppl 7):O45–51, discussion O61–62

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Wyttenbach R,
    2. Gianella S,
    3. Alerci M,
    4. et al

    . Prospective blinded evaluation of Gd-DOTA- versus Gd-BOPTA-enhanced peripheral MR angiography, as compared with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 2003;227:261–69

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Knopp MV,
    2. Schoenberg SO,
    3. Rehm C,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of gadobenate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance angiography: phase I studies. Invest Radiol 2002;37:706–15

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Knopp MV,
    2. Giesel FL,
    3. von Tengg-Kobligk H,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the run-off vasculature: intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;17:694–702

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Volk M,
    2. Strotzer M,
    3. Lenhart M,
    4. et al

    . Renal time-resolved MR angiography: quantitative comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine with different doses. Radiology 2001;220:484–88

    PubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Prokop M,
    2. Schneider G,
    3. Vanzulli A,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: blinded multicenter crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2005;234:399–408

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Bueltmann E,
    2. Erb G,
    3. Kirchin MA,
    4. et al

    . Intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the supraaortic vessels at 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2008;43:695–702

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Rohrer M,
    2. Bauer H,
    3. Mintorovitch J,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715–24

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Nijenhuis RJ,
    2. Leiner T,
    3. Cornips EM,
    4. et al

    . Spinal cord feeding arteries at MR angiography for thoracoscopic spinal surgery: feasibility study and implications for surgical approach. Radiology 2004;233:541–47

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Mull M,
    2. Nijenhuis RJ,
    3. Backes WH,
    4. et al

    . Value and limitations of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in spinal arteriovenous malformations and dural arteriovenous fistulas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1249–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Krings T,
    2. Geibprasert S

    . Spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:639–48

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Backes WH,
    2. Nijenhuis RJ,
    3. Mess WH,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance angiography of collateral blood supply to spinal cord in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm patients. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:261–71. Epub 2008 Jun 201

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Nijenhuis RJ,
    2. Jacobs MJ,
    3. Jaspers K,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of magnetic resonance with computed tomography angiography for preoperative localization of the Adamkiewicz artery in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm patients. J Vasc Surg 2007;45:677–85

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Kawaharada N,
    2. Morishita K,
    3. Hyodoh H,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance angiographic localization of the artery of Adamkiewicz for spinal cord blood supply. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:846–51, discussion 851–52

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Farb RI,
    2. Kim JK,
    3. Willinsky RA,
    4. et al

    . Spinal dural arteriovenous fistula localization with a technique of first-pass gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography: initial experience. Radiology 2002;222:843–50

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Luetmer PH,
    2. Lane JI,
    3. Gilbertson JR,
    4. et al

    . Preangiographic evaluation of spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas with elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography and effect on radiation dose and volume of iodinated contrast material. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:711–18

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Sheehy NP,
    2. Boyle GE,
    3. Meaney JF

    . Normal anterior spinal arteries within the cervical region: high-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology 2005;236:637–41

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Anzalone N,
    2. Scotti R,
    3. Vezzulli P

    . High relaxivity contrast agents in MR angiography of the carotid arteries. Eur Radiol 2006;16 (suppl 7):M27–34

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Balci NC,
    2. Inan N,
    3. Anik Y,
    4. et al

    . Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard-dose gadopentate dimeglumine for delayed contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Acad Radiol 2006;13:833–39

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Colosimo C,
    2. Knopp MV,
    3. Barreau X,
    4. et al

    . A comparison of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DOTA for contrast-enhanced MRI of intracranial tumours. Neuroradiology 2004;46:655–65. Epub 2004 Jun 15

    PubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Knopp MV,
    2. Runge VM,
    3. Essig M,
    4. et al

    . Primary and secondary brain tumors at MR imaging: bicentric intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2004;230:55–64

    PubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Kuhn MJ,
    2. Picozzi P,
    3. Maldjian JA,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of intraaxial enhancing brain tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for visualization and assessment, and implications for surgical intervention. J Neurosurg 2007;106:557–66

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Maravilla KR,
    2. Maldjian JA,
    3. Schmalfuss IM,
    4. et al

    . Contrast enhancement of central nervous system lesions: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparative study of two MR contrast agents. Radiology 2006;240:389–400

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Rowley HA,
    2. Scialfa G,
    3. Gao PY,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions: a large-scale intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1684–91

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Rumboldt Z,
    2. Rowley HA,
    3. Steinberg F,
    4. et al

    . Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of brain tumors at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:760–67

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Giesel FL,
    2. von Tengg-Kobligk H,
    3. Wilkinson ID,
    4. et al

    . Influence of human serum albumin on longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates (r1 and r2) of magnetic resonance contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2006;41:222–28

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Nijenhuis RJ,
    2. Backes WH

    . Inlet arteries or outlet veins of the spinal cord? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:W45, author reply W46

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Hyodoh H,
    2. Shirase R,
    3. Akiba H,
    4. et al

    . Double-subtraction maximum intensity projection MR angiography for detecting the artery of Adamkiewicz and differentiating it from the drainage vein. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:359–65

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science