title: Magnetic resonance evaluation of renal artery stenosis in a swine model: performance of low-dose gadobutrol versus gadoterate meglumine in comparison with digital subtraction intra-arterial catheter angiography.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to compare low-dose imaging with gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA) for evaluation of renal artery stenosis with 3-T magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in a swine model.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 12 experimental animals were evaluated using equivalently dosed gadobutrol and Gd-DOTA for time-resolved and static imaging. For time-resolved imaging, the time-resolved imaging with stochastic trajectories (TWIST) technique (temporal footprint, 4.4 seconds) was used; a dose of 1 mL of gadobutrol was injected at 2 mL/s and a dose of 2 mL of Gd-DOTA was injected at both 2 and 4 mL/s. For a separate static acquisition, doses were doubled. The static scans were used for stenosis gradation and the time-resolved scans for comparison of enhancement dynamics, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and qualitative assessments.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The average magnitude of difference in the stenosis measurements with static gadobutrol scans relative to digital subtraction intra-arterial catheter angiography (mean [SD], 7.4% [5.6%]) was less than with both the 2 mL/s (10.6% [6.2%]) and 4 mL/s (11.5% [7.8%]) Gd-DOTA MRA protocols. On time-resolved scans, peak signal-to-noise ratio was greatest with the gadobutrol protocol (P < 0.05), and the gadobutrol TWIST scan was preferred to the TWIST Gd-DOTA scan in terms of image quality and stenosis visualization in every case for every reader.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Low-dose gadobutrol (~0.05 mmoL/kg) contrast-enhanced MRA results in improved accuracy of renal artery stenosis assessments relative to equivalently dosed Gd-DOTA at 3 T.
authors.affiliation: Scott & White Clinic & Hospital, Department of Radiology, Temple, TX, USA.
authors.forename: John N
authors.initials: JN
authors.lastname: Morelli
authors.forename: Val M
authors.initials: VM
authors.lastname: Runge
authors.forename: Fei
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Ai
authors.forename: Wei
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Xiaoming
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Schmitt
authors.forename: Gary
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: McNeal
authors.forename: Matthew
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lennox
authors.forename: Oliver
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Wusten
authors.forename: Stefan O
authors.initials: SO
authors.lastname: Schoenberg
authors.forename: Ulrike I
authors.initials: UI
authors.lastname: Attenberger
mesh_terms: D015901:Angiography, Digital Subtraction / Q000379:methods*; D000818:Animals; D002406:Catheterization, Peripheral / Q000379:methods; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000008:administration & dosage; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D018810:Magnetic Resonance Angiography / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008536:Meglumine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D009942:Organometallic Compounds / Q000008:administration & dosage; D012078:Renal Artery Obstruction / Q000473:pathology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013552:Swine
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D009942:Organometallic Compounds; C090600:gadobutrol; D008536:Meglumine; C072417:gadoterate meglumine