Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for MR Angiography of Peripheral Arteries

Purpose: To prospectively compare the image quality and diagnostic performance achieved with doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine of 0.1 mmol per kilogram of body weight in patients undergoing contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography of the pelvis, thigh, and lower-leg (excluding foot) for suspected or known peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was granted from each center and informed written consent was obtained from all patients. Between November 2006 and January 2008, 96 patients (62 men, 34 women; mean age, 63.7 years +/- 10.4 [standard deviation]; range, 39-86 years) underwent two identical examinations at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences and randomized 0.1-mmol/kg doses of each agent. Images were evaluated on-site for technical adequacy and quality of vessel visualization and offsite by three independent blinded readers for anatomic delineation and detection/exclusion of pathologic features. Comparative diagnostic performance was determined in 31 patients who underwent digital subtraction angiography. Data were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar, and Wald tests. Interreader agreement was determined by using generalized k statistics. Differences in quantitative contrast enhancement were assessed and a safety evaluation was performed. Results: Ninety-two patients received both agents. Significantly better performance (P < .0001; all evaluations) with gadobenate dimeglumine was noted on-site for technical adequacy and vessel visualization quality and offsite for anatomic delineation and detection/exclusion of pathologic features. Contrast enhancement (P < .0001) and detection of clinically relevant disease (P < .0028) were significantly improved with gadobenate dimeglumine. Interreader agreement for stenosis detection and grading was good to excellent (k = 0.749 and 0.805, respectively). Mild adverse events were reported for four (six events) and five (eight events) patients after gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively. Conclusion: Higher- quality vessel visualization, greater contrast enhancement, fewer technical failures, and improved diagnostic performance are obtained with gadobenate dimeglumine, relative to gadopentetate dimeglumine, when compared intraindividually at 0.1-mmol/kg doses in patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MR angiography for suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease. (c) RSNA, 2010Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog