Gadolinium Enhances Dual-energy Computed Tomography Scan of Pulmonary Artery

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of using gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) for dual-energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).

Methods

Sixty-six patients were randomly divided into three groups and underwent CTPA. Group A had a turbo flash scan using an iohexol injection, Group B had a turbo flash scan using Gd-DTPA, and Group C had a dual-energy scan using Gd-DTPA. The original images of Group C were linearly blended with a blending factor of 0.5 or reconstructed at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 keV, respectively. The groups were compared in terms of pulmonary artery CT value, image quality, and radiation dose.

Results

The pulmonary artery CT values were significantly higher in Group C_40keV than in Groups B and C, but lower than in Group A. There was no significant difference in the image noise of Groups C_40keV, B, and C. Moreover, Group A had the largest beam hardening artifacts of the superior vena cava (SVC), followed by Groups B and C. Group C_40keV showed better vascular branching than the other three groups, among which Group B was superior to Group A. The subjective score of the image quality of Groups A, B, and C showed no significant difference, but the score was significantly higher in Group C_40keV than in Groups A and B. The radiation dose was significantly lower in Group B than in Groups A and C.

Conclusion

Gd-CTPA is recommended to patients who are unsuitable for receiving an iodine-based CTPA. Furthermore, a turbo flash scan could surpass a dual-energy scan without consideration for virtual monoenergetic imaging.

Keywords

gadopentetate dimeglumine / computed tomography pulmonary angiography / dual-energy scan / turbo flash scan / virtual monoenergetic imaging

References

[1] EssienEO, RaliP, MathaiSC. Pulmonary Embolism. Med Clin North Am, 2019, 103(3): 549-564

[2] MansellaG, KeilC, NickelCH, et al.. Delayed Diagnosis in Pulmonary Embolism: Frequency, Patient Characteristics, and Outcome. Respiration, 2020, 99(7): 589-597

[3] Di NisioM, van EsN, BullerHR. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Lancet, 2016, 388(10063): 3060-3073

[4] GrabherrS, HeinemannA, VogelH, et al.. Postmortem CT Angiography Compared with Autopsy: A Forensic Multicenter Study. Radiology, 2018, 288(1): 270-276

[5] MooreAJE, WachsmannJ, ChamarthyMR, et al.. Imaging of acute pulmonary embolism: an update. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther, 2018, 8(3): 225-243

[6] LakhalK, EhrmannS, Robert-EdanV. Iodinated contrast medium: Is there a re(n)al problem? A clinical vignette-based review. Crit Care, 2020, 24(1): 641

[7] BonelliN, RossettoR, CastagnoD, et al.. Hyperthyroidism in patients with ischaemic heart disease after iodine load induced by coronary angiography: Long-term follow-up and influence of baseline thyroid functional status. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf), 2018, 88(2): 272-278

[8] DavenportMS, PerazellaMA, YeeJ, et al.. Use of Intravenous Iodinated Contrast Media in Patients with Kidney Disease: Consensus Statements from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation. Radiology, 2020, 294(3): 660-668

[9] DonaI, BogasG, SalasM, et al.. Hypersensitivity Reactions to Multiple Iodinated Contrast Media. Front Pharmacol, 2020, 11: 575437

[10] StaculF, BertolottoM, ThomsenHS, et al.. Iodine-based contrast media, multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathies: literature review and ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(2): 683-691

[11] XiaoYD, PaudelR, LiuJ, et al.. MRI contrast agents: Classification and application (Review). Int J Mol Med, 2016, 38(5): 1319-1326

[12] KaneGC, StansonAW, KalnickaD, et al.. Comparison between gadolinium and iodine contrast for percutaneous intervention in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: clinical outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2008, 23(4): 1233-1240

[13] Remy-JardinM, BaheparJ, LafitteJJ, et al.. Multi-detector row CT angiography of pulmonary circulation with gadolinium-based contrast agents: prospective evaluation in 60 patients. Radiology, 2006, 238(3): 1022-1035

[14] PatinoM, ParakhA, LoGC, et al.. Virtual Monochromatic Dual-Energy Aortoiliac CT Angiography With Reduced Iodine Dose: A Prospective Randomized Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2019, 212(2): 467-474

[15] De SantisD, EidM, De CeccoCN, et al.. Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in Cardiothoracic Vascular Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am, 2018, 56(4): 521-534

[16] SiegelMJ, KazaRK, BolusDN, et al.. White Paper of the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance on Dual-Energy CT, Part 1: Technology and Terminology. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2016, 40(6): 841-845

[17] DeseiveS, PuglieseF, MeaveA, et al.. Image quality and radiation dose of a prospectively electrocardiography-triggered high-pitch data acquisition strategy for coronary CT angiography: The multicenter, randomized PROTECTION IV study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr, 2015, 9(4): 278-285

[18] FlohrTG, LengS, YuL, et al.. Dual-source spiral CT with pitch up to 3.2 and 75 ms temporal resolution: image reconstruction and assessment of image quality. Med Phys, 2009, 36(12): 5641-5653

[19] ThurnherSA, CapelasteguiA, Del OlmoFH, 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, 2001, 219(1): 137-146

[20] ChicoskieC, TelloR. Gadolinium-enhanced MDCT angiography of the abdomen: feasibility and limitations. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005, 184(6): 1821-1828

[21] NadjiriJ, PfeifferD, StraeterAS, et al.. Spectral Computed Tomography Angiography With a Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent: First Clinical Imaging Results in Cardiovascular Applications. J Thorac Imaging, 2018, 33(4): 246-253

[22] FlynnMM, ParekhAN, ParikhMR, et al.. Renal Safety of Intravenous Gadolinium-enhanced MRI in Patients Following Liver Transplantation. Transplantation, 2019, 103(6): e159-e163

[23] RajiahP, CiancibelloL, NovakR, et al.. Ultra-low dose contrast CT pulmonary angiography in oncology patients using a high-pitch helical dual-source technology. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2019, 25(3): 195-203

[24] SilvaM, MilaneseG, CobelliR, et al.. CT angiography for pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: investigation of a protocol by 20 ml of high-concentration contrast medium. Radiol Med, 2020, 125(2): 137-144

[25] AbujudehHH, KosarajuVK, KaewlaiR. Acute adverse reactions to gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobenate dimeglumine: experience with 32,659 injections. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2010, 194(2): 430-434

[26] AranS, ShaqdanKW, AbujudehHH. Adverse allergic reactions to linear ionic gadolinium-based contrast agents: experience with 194, 400 injections. Clin Radiol, 2015, 70(5): 466-475

[27] BleicherAG, KanalE. Assessment of adverse reaction rates to a newly approved MRI contrast agent: review of 23,553 administrations of gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 191(6): W307-311

[28] BruderO, SchneiderS, PilzG, et al.. 2015 Update on Acute Adverse Reactions to Gadolinium based Contrast Agents in Cardiovascular MR. Large Multi-National and Multi-Ethnical Population Experience With 37788 Patients From the EuroCMR Registry. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2015, 17(1): 58

[29] HuntCH, HartmanRP, HesleyGK. Frequency and severity of adverse effects of iodinated and gadolinium contrast materials: retrospective review of 456,930 doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2009, 193(4): 1124-1127

[30] MatsumuraT, HayakawaM, ShimadaF, et al.. Safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine after 120 million administrations over 25 years of clinical use. Magn Reson Med Sci, 2013, 12(4): 297-304

[31] UhligJ, LuckeC, VliegenthartR, et al.. Acute adverse events in cardiac MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents: results from the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) MRCT Registry in 72,839 patients. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(7): 3686-3695

[32] YoungLK, MatthewSZ, HoustonJG. Absence of potential gadolinium toxicity symptoms following 22,897 gadoteric acid (Dotarem(R)) examinations, including 3,209 performed on renally insufficient individuals. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(4): 1922-1930

[33] HanederS, KucharczykW, SchoenbergSO, et al.. Safety of magnetic resonance contrast media: a review with special focus on nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2015, 24(1): 57-65

[34] MurphyKJ, BrunbergJA, CohanRH. Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: a review of 36 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1996, 167(4): 847-849

[35] RungeVM. Safety of approved MR contrast media for intravenous injection. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2000, 12(2): 205-213

[36] WoolenSA, ShankarPR, GagnierJJ, et al.. Risk of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis in Patients With Stage 4 or 5 Chronic Kidney Disease Receiving a Group II Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med, 2020, 180(2): 223-230

[37] KandaT, FukusatoT, MatsudaM, et al.. Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent Accumulates in the Brain Even in Subjects without Severe Renal Dysfunction: Evaluation of Autopsy Brain Specimens with Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy. Radiology, 2015, 276(1): 228-232

[38] MaximovaN, GregoriM, ZennaroF, et al.. Hepatic Gadolinium Deposition and Reversibility after Contrast Agent-enhanced MR Imaging of Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients. Radiology, 2016, 281(2): 418-426

[39] McDonaldRJ, McDonaldJS, KallmesDF, et al.. Gadolinium Deposition in Human Brain Tissues after Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging in Adult Patients without Intracranial Abnormalities. Radiology, 2017, 285(2): 546-554

[40] MurataN, Gonzalez-CuyarLF, MurataK, et al.. Macrocyclic and Other Non-Group 1 Gadolinium Contrast Agents Deposit Low Levels of Gadolinium in Brain and Bone Tissue: Preliminary Results From 9 Patients With Normal Renal Function. Invest Radiol, 2016, 51(7): 447-453

[41] McDonaldRJ, McDonaldJS, KallmesDF, et al.. Intracranial Gadolinium Deposition after Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology, 2015, 275(3): 772-782

[42] LayneKA, DarganPI, ArcherJRH, et al.. Gadolinium deposition and the potential for toxicological sequelae — A literature review of issues surrounding gadolinium-based contrast agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2018, 84(11): 2522-2534

[43] KandaT, NakaiY, ObaH, et al.. Gadolinium deposition in the brain. Magn Reson Imaging, 2016, 34(10): 1346-1350

[44] IliffJJ, WangM, LiaoY, et al.. A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid beta. Sci Transl Med, 2012, 4(147): 147

[45] MalikovaH. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: the end of the story?. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2019, 9(8): 1470-1474

[46] TaokaT, NaganawaS. Gadolinium-based Contrast Media, Cerebrospinal Fluid and the Glymphatic System: Possible Mechanisms for the Deposition of Gadolinium in the Brain. Magn Reson Med Sci, 2018, 17(2): 111-119

[47] EstebanJM, AlonsoA, CerveraV, et al.. One-molar gadolinium chelate (gadobutrol) as a contrast agent for CT angiography of the thoracic and abdominal aorta. Eur Radiol, 2007, 17(9): 2394-2400

[48] BeckerCR, HongC, KnezA, et al.. Optimal contrast application for cardiac 4-detector-row computed tomography. Invest Radiol, 2003, 38(11): 690-694

[49] KaliszK, BuetheJ, SabooSS, et al.. Artifacts at Cardiac CT: Physics and Solutions. Radiographics, 2016, 36(7): 2064-2083

[50] HolmesDR3rd, FletcherJG, ApelA, et al.. Evaluation of non-linear blending in dual-energy computed tomography. Eur J Radiol, 2008, 68(3): 409-413

[51] SilvaAC, MorseBG, HaraAK, et al.. Dual-energy (spectral) CT: applications in abdominal imaging. Radiographics, 2011, 31(4): 1031-1046 discussion 1047–1050

[52] BehrendtFF, SchmidtB, PlumhansC, et al.. Image fusion in dual energy computed tomography: effect on contrast enhancement, signal-to-noise ratio and image quality in computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol, 2009, 44(1): 1-6

[53] GrantKL, FlohrTG, KraussB, et al.. Assessment of an advanced image-based technique to calculate virtual monoenergetic computed tomographic images from a dual-energy examination to improve contrast-to-noise ratio in examinations using iodinated contrast media. Invest Radiol, 2014, 49(9): 586-592