Evaluation of four injection profiles for uniform contrast-enhanced signal intensity profiles in MR angiography.

Background Gadolinium concentration variation during acquisition of contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) may lead to artifacts. Purpose To compare signal intensity (SI) profiles of four different contrast agent injection strategies during CE-MRA with the goal of minimizing SI variation during acquisition. Study Type Prospective. Subjects Forty subjects randomized to receive one of four injection profiles of gadobenate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg), either undiluted (0.5 M) or diluted to 40 ml total volume. Tested profiles: 1) nondiluted single-phase ("standard" NS; 1.6 ml/s), 2) diluted single-phase (DS; 1.6 ml/s), 3) diluted biphasic (DB; 9 ml @ 3.3 ml/s, 29 ml @ 1.4 ml/s), 4) patient-tailored protocol using linear prediction (DT). Field Strength/Sequence Time-resolved SI measured at 3T with spoiled gradient echo sequences having analogous parameters to those of CE-MRA. Assessment Plateau arrival time, rise time, duration, peak and tail SI, plateau quality (sum of squared residuals; SSR), average SI for each injection type derived were used. Statistical Test Two-tailed t-test. Results Peak SI, arrival, and rise times were not significantly different between groups, excepting peak SI DB slightly > DS (P = 0.042). Duration of NS vs. the diluted groups was significantly shorter (all P < 0.0001), and DS duration was significantly shorter than that of DT and DB (NS 11.4 +/- 3.5 vs. DS 22.9 +/- 4.3, DB 25.4 +/- 2.3, DT 28.3 +/- 4.1 sec). Quality (SSR) of the 20-second plateau was significantly better for DS, DB, DT as compared with NS (all P < 0.001). Data Conclusion Three different strategies to power-inject diluted gadobenate dimeglumine targeting a 20-second plateau produced SI profiles with longer duration, more consistent plateau, and no significant loss in peak SI. Such injection profiles may provide more uniform SI during CE-MRA, potentially reducing blurring artifacts. Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1808-1816.