Myocardial T1 mapping and determination of partition coefficients at 3 tesla: comparison between gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium

• Autor(a) principal: Nacif,Marcelo Souto
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Raman,Fabio S., Gai,Neville, Jones,Jacquin, van der Geest,Rob J., T. Sibley,Christopher, Liu,Songtao, Bluemke,David A.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842018000100013
• topic: Gadolinium; Gadolinium DTPA; Contrast media; Organometallic compounds; Magnetic resonance imaging/methods; Myocardium/pathology

Abstract Objective: To compare an albumin-bound gadolinium chelate (gadofosveset trisodium) and an extracellular contrast agent (gadobenate dimeglumine), in terms of their effects on myocardial longitudinal (T1) relaxation time and partition coefficient. Materials and Methods: Study subjects underwent two imaging sessions for T1 mapping at 3 tesla with a modified look-locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) pulse sequence to obtain one pre-contrast T1 map and two post-contrast T1 maps (mean 15 and 21 min, respectively). The partition coefficient was calculated as ΔR1myocardium /ΔR1blood , where R1 is 1/T1. Results: A total of 252 myocardial and blood pool T1 values were obtained in 21 healthy subjects. After gadolinium administration, the myocardial T1 was longer for gadofosveset than for gadobenate, the mean difference between the two contrast agents being −7.6 ± 60 ms (p = 0.41). The inverse was true for the blood pool T1, which was longer for gadobenate than for gadofosveset, the mean difference being 56.5 ± 67 ms (p < 0.001). The partition coefficient (λ) was higher for gadobenate than gadofosveset (0.41 vs. 0.33), indicating slower blood pool washout for gadofosveset than for gadobenate. Conclusion: Myocardial T1 times did not differ significantly between gadobenate and gadofosveset. At typical clinical doses of the contrast agents, partition coefficients were significantly lower for the intravascular contrast agent than for the extravascular agent.