Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents: A Review of Literature
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contrast agents most commonly agents used in diagnosing different diseases. Several agents have been ever introduced with different peculiar characteristics. They vary in potency, adverse reaction and other specification, so it is important to select the proper agent in different situations.
We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE/PUBMED, Web of Science (ISI), Scopus, Google Scholar by using keywords “gadolinium” and “MRI contrast Medias”, “Gadofosvest”, “Gadobenate” and “Gadoxetate”. The most frequent contrast media agents made based on gadolinium (Gd). These are divided into two categories based on the structure of their chelating parts, linear agents and macrocyclic agents. All characteristics of contrast media factors, including efficiency, kinetic properties, stability, side effects and the rate of resolution are directly related to the structure of chelating part of that formulation.
In vitro data has shown that the macrocyclic compounds are the most stable Gd-CA as they do not bind to serum proteins, they all possess similar and relatively low relaxivity and the prevalence of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) has decreased by increasing the use of macrocyclic agents in recent years. No cases of NSF have been recorded after the administration of any of the high-relaxivity protein interacting agents, the vascular imaging agent gadofosveset trisodium (Ablavar), the hepatic imaging agent gadoxetate meglumine (Eovist), and the multipurpose agent gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance). In pregnancy and lactating women, stable macrocyclic agent is recommended.
Bellin MF, Van Der AJ. Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: An overview. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66: 160-7.
Morcos SK. Extracellular gadolinium contrast agents: Differences in stability. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66:175-9.
Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Schmitt-Willich H, Press WR, Negishi C, Weinmann HJ, Speck U. Preclinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the hepatobiliary system. Radiology 1993;183:59- 64.
Chan KW, Barra S, Botta M, Wong WT. Novel gadolinium (III) polyaminocarboxylate macrocyclic complexes as potential magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Inorg Biochem 2004;98(5):677-82
Lowe MP. MRI contrast agents: the next generation. Aust J Chem 2002; 55:551-6.
Seeger A, Kramer U, Fenchel M. Comparison between a linear versus a macrocyclic contrast agent for whole body MR angiography in a clinical routine setting. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2008; 10:63-6.
Rapp JH, Wolff SD, Quinn SF, et al. Aortoiliac occlusive disease in patients with known or suspected peripheral vascular disease: safety and efficacy of gadofovsveset-enhanced MR angiography Multicenter comparative phase III study. Radiology 2005; 236:71–8.
Idee JM, Port M, Raynal I, Schaefer M, Le Greneur S, Corot C. Clinical and biological consequences of transmetallation induced by contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2006; 20:563-76.
Tweedle MF, Hagan JJ, Kumar K, Mantha S, Chang CA. Reaction of gadolinium chelates with endogenously available ions. Magn Reson Imaging1991; 9:409–15.
Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hütter J, Weinmann HJ. Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol 2008;43:817–28.
Sieber M, Lengsfeld P, Frenzel T. Preclinical investigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosislike lesions. Eur Radiol 2008;18: 2164-73.
Morcos SK. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis following the administration Sahraei et al. 182 jpc.tums.ac.ir December 2014;2(4) of extracellular gadolinium based contrast agents: is the stability of the contrast agent molecule an important factor in the pathogenesis of this condition? Br J Radiol 2007;80:73–6.
Green RWF, Krestin GP. Non-tissue specific extra cellular MR contrast media. In: Thomsen, editor. Contrast media. Safety issues and ESUR guidelines. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2006. p. 107–12.
Laurent S, Elst LV, Copoix F, Muller RN. Stability of MRI paramagnetic contrast media, a proton relaxometric protocol for transmetallation assessment. Invest Radiol 2001;36:115–22.
GibbyWA, Gibby KA. Comparison of Gd DTPA-BMA (Omniscan) versus Gd-Hp-DO3A (ProHance) retention in human bone tissue by inductive coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. Invest Radiol 2004;39:138–42.
Sieber M, Lengsfeld P, Frenzel T. Preclinical nvestigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosislike lesions. Eur Radiol 2008;18: 2164-73.
Anzalone N. Are All Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents Similar: The Importance of High Stability, High Relaxivity and High Concentration. European neurological review 2009;4:98-102.
Kirchin MA, Pirovano GP, Spinazzi A. Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd- BOPTA): an overview. Invest Radiol 1998;33:798–809.
Spinazzi A, Lorusso V, Pirovano G, Kirchin M. Safety, tolerance, biodistribution and MR imaging enhancement of the liver with Gd- BOPTA: results of clinical pharmacologic and pilot imaging studies in non-patient and patient volunteers. Acad Radiol 1999; 6: 282–91.
Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A, et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOBDTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 1995;195:785–92.
Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Shamsi K, et al. Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence. Radiology 1996;199:177–83.
Shellock FG, Kanal E. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:477–84.
23. Bruder O, Schneider S, Nothnagel D, et al. Acute adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents in CMR: multicenter experience with 17,767 patients from the EuroCMR Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4(11):1171-6.
Broome DR, Girguis M, Baron P, Cottrell AC, Kjellin I, Kirk GA.. Gadodiamide associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:586–92.
Perez-Rodriguez J, Lai S, Ehst BD, Fine DM, Bluemke DA.. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: incidence, associations, and effect of risk factor assessment--report of 33 cases.. Radiology 2009;250:371-7
Collidge TA, Thompson PC, Mark PB, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: retrospective study of a renal replacement therapy cohort. Radiology 2007;245:168–75.
Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected etiological role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2359–62.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy associated with exposure to gadolinium-containing contrast agents. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:137–41.
Aart J, Molen V, Bellin M. Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: Differences in diagnostic efficacy. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66: 168- 174.
Webb JA, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. The use of iodinated and gadolinium contrast media during pregnancy and lactation. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1234–40.
Thomsen HS. ESUR guideline: gadolinium-based contrast media and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2692–6.
Kubik-Huch RA, Gottstein-Aalame NM, Frenzel T, et al. Gadopentetate dimeglumine excretion into human breast milk during lactation. Radiology 2000;216:555–8.
|Issue||Vol 2, No 4 (Autumn 2014)|
|Adverse Drug Reaction Contrast Medias Gadolinium Magnetic Resonance Imaging|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|