Contrast visibility for indirect MR arthrography with different protein contents and agent relaxivities at different field strengths: An in vitro model

• Published in: European journal of radiology 2011-11, Vol.80 (2), p.559-564
• Main Authors: Nouh, M.R, Schweitzer, M.E, Ragatte, Ravinder R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Albumins - chemistry; Analysis of Variance; Biological and medical sciences; Contrast Media - chemistry; Contrast media. Radiopharmaceuticals; Gadolinium; Heterocyclic Compounds - chemistry; Image Enhancement - methods; In Vitro Techniques; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Joint Diseases - diagnosis; Joints; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Medical sciences; Meglumine - analogs & derivatives; Meglumine - chemistry; MR arthrography; MR contrast; MRI; Organometallic Compounds - chemistry; Osteoarticular system. Muscles; Phantoms, Imaging; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Protein Binding; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry; Radiology; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted
• ISSN: 0720-048X; 1872-7727
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.011

Abstract Objectives Protein binding and relaxivity are major determinants of the relative effectiveness of an MR arthrographic contrast agent. We sought to evaluate the optimal concentrations of high and usual relaxivity agents in two different proteinous environments at variable field strength for two MR contrast agents of different relaxivities. Materials and methods At 1.5, 3.0 and 7.0 T, gadobenate dimeglumine (Multihance) with high-relaxivity in proteinous environment and gadoteridol (Prohance) with more typical behavior were studied at 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10 mmol in 1.7 g/dL and 3 g/dL albumin (mimicking protein content of normal and inflammatory synovial fluids, respectively) vs. pure normal saline, as a control. Analysis of image signal intensity (SI) and relaxivity values was done. Results In our study a change in concentration had no significant effect on T1 SI. In contrast, nearly every change in concentration led to a significant change in T2 SI. In 1.25 mmol concentration, there was no effect on T1 SI of either protein concentrations while higher concentrations showed significant decreased SI in either protein carrier compared to saline. The SI of Gadoteridol was significantly higher ( p < 0.0001) than that of gadobenate at each of 3 T and 7 T, but was significantly lower ( p < 0.001) at 1.5 T in saline solution while this was not significant for either protein carrier. Both protein carriers had significant effect on T1 ( p = 0.0124) and T2 ( p = 0.0118) relaxivities. Also solution concentration significantly ( p < 0.01) affected both T1 and T2 relaxivities. Field strength did not affect T1 relaxivity ( p = 0.02511) while it significantly affected T2 relaxivity ( p < 0.001). This was significant ( p = 0.035) in case of gadoteridol at 3 T. Conclusion 1.25 mmol concentration of both gadoteridol and gadobenate solutions yields the best diagnostic T1 SI specially in higher fields (3 T and 7 T) and avoid the deleterious effect of increasing concentration on T2 SI. Gadoteridol is suggested on 3 T field indirect MR arthrograms. Protein had no positive effect on either SI or relaxivities in any joint model.