AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kopka, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grabbe, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kopka, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grabbe, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 170, 345-348, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Differences in injection rates on contrast-enhanced breath-hold three- dimensional MR angiography

L Kopka, R Vosshenrich, J Rodenwaldt and E Grabbe
Department of Radiology, Hospital of Georg-August-University, Goettingen, Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the optimization of injection rates with an automatic power injector versus manual injection for contrast-enhanced breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) MR angiography of the abdominal aorta and its branches. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 50 patients underwent breath-hold 3D MR angiography (5/2 [TR/TE]; flip angle, 30 degrees) of the abdominal vessels on a 1.5-T system. Each patient received 0.15 mmol/kg of gadopentetate dimeglumine. All patients were randomly assigned to one of five equally sized groups. The contrast bolus was injected manually in group 1, always by the same investigator, who tried to perform a steady injection rate of 2 ml/sec. An automatic injector was used in groups 2-5 with injection flow rates of 0.5 ml/sec, 2 ml/sec, 4 ml/sec, and 6 ml/sec. The start of the MR sequence was tailored individually to the applied volume of contrast material after determination of circulation times by a test bolus. We measured the signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios as well as the relative vascular enhancement. The visualization of different abdominal vessel segments was independently ranked on a scale of 1-5 (1 = not visible; 5 = excellent visualization) by three reviewers who were unaware of the applied contrast material injection rate. RESULTS: The signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios of groups 3 and 4 (2 ml/sec and 4 ml/sec, respectively) were significantly (p < .05) higher than the ratios of groups 1, 2, and 5. The average relative vascular enhancement of groups 3 and 4 was significantly higher (p < .05) than the enhancement of all other groups. The contrast bolus applied with a faster injection rate (group 5) did not cover large parts of the K-space, resulting in increased blurring of the vessel contours. The subjective evaluation of large and small diameter vessels showed significantly better results in groups 3 and 4 than in groups 1, 2, and 5. CONCLUSION: The use of an automatic MR power injector proved superior to manual injection of contrast material. The optimal injection rate was 2 ml/sec for 3D breath-hold MR angiography of the abdominal vessels.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
H. Ersoy and F. J. Rybicki
MR Angiography of the Lower Extremities
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): 1675 - 1684.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
P. J. Schaefer, F. P. Boudghene, H. J. Brambs, M. Bret-Zurita, J. L. Caniego, R. A. Coulden, H. B. Gehl, R. Hammerstingl, A. Huber, R. J. Mendez, et al.
Abdominal and Iliac Arterial Stenoses: Comparative Double-blinded Randomized Study of Diagnostic Accuracy of 3D MR Angiography with Gadodiamide or Gadopentetate Dimeglumine
Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 827 - 840.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
H. L. Zhang, B. Y. Ho, M. Chao, K. C. Kent, H. L. Bush, P. L. Faries, A. I. Benvenisty, and M. R. Prince
Decreased Venous Contamination on 3D Gadolinium-Enhanced Bolus Chase Peripheral MR Angiography Using Thigh Compression
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2004; 183(4): 1041 - 1047.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. P. Kunz, K. Oberholzer, W. Kuroczynski, G. Horstick, F. Krummenauer, M. Thelen, and K.-F. Kreitner
Assessment of Chronic Aortic Dissection: Contribution of Different ECG-Gated Breath-Hold MRI Techniques
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2004; 182(5): 1319 - 1326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
K. T. Bae
Peak Contrast Enhancement in CT and MR Angiography: When Does It Occur and Why? Pharmacokinetic Study in a Porcine Model
Radiology, June 1, 2003; 227(3): 809 - 816.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. A. Thurnher, A. Capelastegui, F. H. Del Olmo, R. F. Dondelinger, C. Gervás, A. G. Jassoy, P. Keto, C. Loewe, C. N. Ludman, L. Marti-Bonmati, et al.
Safety and Effectiveness of Single- versus Triple-Dose Gadodiamide Injection- enhanced MR Angiography of the Abdomen: A Phase III Double-Blind Multicenter Study
Radiology, April 1, 2001; 219(1): 137 - 146.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
X. Leclerc, L. Nicol, J.-Y. Gauvrit, V. L. Thuc, D. Leys, and J.-P. Pruvo
Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography of Supraaortic Vessels: The Effect of Voxel Size on Image Quality
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., June 1, 2000; 21(6): 1021 - 1027.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. B. J. M. Korst, F. B. M. Joosten, C. T. Postma, G. J. Jager, J. K. Krabbe, and J. O. Barentsz
Accuracy of Normal-Dose Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography in Assessing Renal Artery Stenosis and Accessory Renal Artery Stenosis and Accessory Renal Arteries
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2000; 174(3): 629 - 634.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
K. Mitsuzaki, Y. Yamashita, I. Ogata, Y. Tang, T. Namimoto, and M. Takahashi
Optimal Protocol for Injection of Contrast Material at MR Angiography: Study of Healthy Volunteers
Radiology, December 1, 1999; 213(3): 913 - 918.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
L. Kopka, J. Rodenwaldt, R. Vosshenrich, U. Fischer, B. Renner, T. Lorf, J. Graessner, B. Ringe, and E. Grabbe
Hepatic Blood Supply: Comparison of Optimized Dual Phase Contrast-enhanced Three-dimensional MR Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography
Radiology, April 1, 1999; 211(1): 51 - 58.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
V. S. Lee, N. M. Rofsky, G. A. Krinsky, D. H. Stemerman, and J. C. Weinreb
Single-Dose Breath-hold Gadolinium-enhanced Three-dimensional MR Angiography of the Renal Arteries
Radiology, April 1, 1999; 211(1): 69 - 78.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. N. Shetty, K. G. Bis, A. J. Duerinckx, and V. R. Narra
Lower Extremity MR Angiography: Universal Retrofitting of High-Field-Strength Systems with Stepping Kinematic Imaging Platforms—Initial Experience
Radiology, January 1, 2002; 222(1): 284 - 291.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.