Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제1권2호
  • /
  • Pages.91-97
  • /
  • 2000
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지

Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography: Dose the Test Dose Bolus Represent the Main Dose Bolus Accurately?

  • Jongmin J. Lee (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Yongmin Chang (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Duk-Sik Kang (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kyungpook National University)
  • 투고 : 1999.12.21
  • 심사 : 2000.05.04
  • 발행 : 2000.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To determine whether the time-intensity curves acquired by test and main dose contrast injections for MR angiography are similar. Materials and Methods: In 11 patients, repeated contrast-enhanced 2D-turbo-FLASH scans with 1-sec interval were obtained. Both test and main dose timeintensity curves were acquired from the abdominal aorta, and the parameters of time-intensity curves for the test and main boluses were compared. The parameters used were arterial and venous enhancement times, arterial peak enhancement time, arteriovenous circulation time, enhancement duration and enhancement expansion ratio. Results: Between the main and test boluses, arterial and venous enhancement times and arteriovenous circulation time showed statistically significant correlation (p < 0.01), with correlation coefficients of 0.95, 0.92 and 0.98 respectively. Although the enhancement duration was definitely greater than infusion time, reasonable measurement of the end enhancement point in the main bolus was impossible. Conclusion: Only arterial and venous enhancement times and arteriovenous circulation time of the main bolus could be predicted from the test-bolus results. The use of these reliable parameters would lead to improvements in the scan timing method for MR angiography.

키워드

과제정보

The authors would like to thank Nycomed Imaging AS Korea for their material support.

참고문헌

  1. Prince MR, Narasimham DL, Stanley JC, et al. Breath-hold gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the abdominal aorta and its major branches. Radiology 1995;197:785-792 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480757
  2. Pavone P, Giuliani S, Cardone G, et al. Intraarterial portography with gadopentetate dimeglumine: improved liver-to-lesion contrast in MR imaging. Radiology 1991;179:693-697 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.179.3.2027976
  3. Losef SV, Rajan SS, Patt RH, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced magnitude contrast MR angiography of popliteal and tibial arteries. Radiology 1992;184:349-355 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.184.2.1620827
  4. Kent KC, Edelman RR, Kim D, Steinman TI, Porter DH, Skillman JJ. Magnetic resonance imaging: a reliable test for the evaluation of proximal atherosclerotic renal arterial stenosis. J Vasc Surg 1991;13:311-318 https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(91)90224-I
  5. Gibson M, Cook G, Gedryc WM. Case report: renal transplant artery stenosis - three cases where magnetic resonance angiography was superior to conventional arteriography. Br J Radiol 1995;68:89-92 https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-68-805-89
  6. Ho KYJAM, Leiner T, Haan MW, Kessels AGH, Kitslaar PJEHM, Engelshoven JMA. Peripheral vascular tree stenoses: Evaluation with moving-bed infusion-tracking MR angiography. Radiology 1998;206:683-692 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494486
  7. Holland GA, Dougherty L, Carpenter JP, et al. Breath-hold ultrafast three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the aorta and the renal and other visceral abdominal arteries. AJR 1996;166:971-981. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.166.4.8610584
  8. Earls JP, Rofsky NM, DeCorato DR, Krinsky GA, Winreb JC. Breath-hold single-dose gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional MR aortography: Usefulness of a timing examination and MR power injector. Radiology 1996;201:705-710. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.201.3.8939219
  9. Strouse PJ, Prince MR, Chenevert TL. Effect of the rate of gadopentetate dimeglumine administration on abdominal vascular and soft-tissue MR imaging enhancment patterns. Radiology 1996;201:809-816 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.201.3.8939236
  10. Kopka L, Vosshenrich R, Mueller D, Fischer U, Rodenwaldt J, Grabbe E. Results of a contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography in a single breath-hold after optimization of the contrast material bolus. Fortschr Roentgenstr 1997;166:15-20
  11. Snidow JJ, Johnson MS, Harris VJ, et al. Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography for aortoiliac inflow assessment plus renal artery screening in a single breath-hold. Radiology 1996;198:725-732 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628861
  12. Leung DA, McKinnon GC, Davis CP, Pfammatter T, Krestin GP, Debatin JF. Breath-hold, contrast-enhanced, three dimensional MR angiography. Radiology 1996;201:569-571 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.201.2.8888260
  13. Ho KY, Haan MW, Kessels AGH, Engelshoven JMA. Peripheral vascular tree stenoses: Detection with subtracted and nonsubtracted MR angiography. Radiology 1998;206:673-681 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494485
  14. Kopka L, Vosshenrich R, Rodenwaldt J, Grabbe E. Differences in injection rates on contrast-enhanced breath-hold three-dimensional MR angiography. AJR 1998;170:345-348 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.170.2.9456943