Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of injection rate in determining the development of artifacts during the acquisition of dynamic arterial phase in Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI studies

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether different Gd-EOB-DTPA injection rates could influence the development of artifacts during the arterial phase of liver MRI studies.

Materials and methods

All Gd-EOB-DTPA liver MRI studies performed for different clinical indications at a single tertiary referral center were retrospectively evaluated. Each examination was acquired on a 1.5 T scanner with T1 In- and Out-of-Phase, T2 with and without fat-saturation, DWI, and 3D-T1 fat-sat dynamic sequences. Patients were divided into two groups according to the injection rate (1 ml/s and 1.5 ml/s). A single radiologist recorded the presence or absence of artifacts during different acquisition phases, respectively: (1) all examination; (2) only during the arterial phase; (3) only during the portal-venous phase; (4) both in arterial and portal-venous phases. From a total of 748 MRI studies performed, 229 were excluded due to the presence of artifacts during the entire examination. The remaining 519 MRI studies were divided into two groups according to the injection rate.

Results

The first group (flow rate = 1 ml/s) was composed by 312 (60.1%) patients and the second group (flow rate = 1.5 ml/s) by 207 (39.9%) patients. In the first group, 2 (0.6%) patients showed artifacts in all dynamic sequences; 13 (4%) only in the arterial phase, 16 (5%) only in the portal-venous phase, and 38 (12%) both in arterial and portal-venous phases; a total of 243 (78%) showed no artifacts. In the second group, 3 (1.5%) patients had artifacts in all dynamic sequences, 82 (40%) only in the arterial phase, 20 (10%) only in the portal-venous phase, and 53 (25%) both in arterial and portal-venous phases; a total of 49 (23.5%) showed no artifacts. A significant difference between the two groups regarding the absence of artifacts in all examination and the presence of artifacts only during the arterial phase was found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The development of artifacts during the arterial phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA liver MRI studies could be related to the injection rate and its reduction may help to decrease the incidence of artifacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CM:

Contrast media

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

EMA:

European Medicines Agency

ESGAR:

European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology

Gd-BOPTA:

Gadobenate dimeglumine

Gd-EOB-DTPA:

Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

References

  1. Semelka RC, Shoenut P, Kroeker MA et al (1992) Focal liver disease: comparison of dynamic contrast enhanced CT and T2-weighted fat-suppressed, FLASH and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 184:687

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Semelka RC, Martin DR, Balci C et al (2001) Focal liver lesions: comparison of dual phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:397–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellin MF, Vasile M, Morel-Precetti S (2003) Currently used non-specific extracellular MR contrast media. Eur Radiol 13:2688–2698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Balci NC, Semelka RC (2005) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver. Radiol Clin N Am 43:887–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. van Montfoort JE, Stieger B, Meijer DK, Weinmann HJ, Meier PJ, Fattinger KE (1999) Hepatic uptake of the magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent gadoxetate by the organic anion transporting polypeptide Oatp1. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 290:153–157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Semelka RC, Helmberger TK (2001) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 218:27–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Neri E, Bali MA, Ba-Ssalamah A, Boraschi P, Brancatelli G, Alves FC, Grazioli L, Helmberger T, Lee JM, Manfredi R, Martì-Bonmatì L, Matos C, Merkle EM, Op DeBeeck B, Schima W, Skehan S, Vilgrain V, Zech C, Bartolozzi C (2016) ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Eur Radiol 26(4):921–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3900-3(Epub 2015 Jul 21, PMID: 26194455, PMCID: PMC4778143)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gupta RT, Iseman CM, Leyendecker JR, Shyknevsky I, Merkle EM, Taouli B (2012) Diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia with MRI: multicenter retrospective study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine to gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karam AR, Shankar S, Surapaneni P, Kim YH, Hussain S (2010) Focal nodular hyperplasia: central scar enhancement pattern using gadoxetate disodium. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:341–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Park Y, Kim SH, Kim SH et al (2010) Gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI versus gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA)-enhanced MRI for preoperatively detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: an initial experience. Korean J Radiol 11:433–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(1):13–28. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4392(Preview PubMed PMID: 20566794)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Czervionke LF, Czervionke JM, Daniels DL, Haughton VM (1988) Characteristic features of MR truncation artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 151(6):1219–1228 (PubMed PMID: 3263776)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Haradome H, Grazioli L, Tsunoo M et al (2010) Can MR fluoroscopic triggering technique and slow rate injection provide appropriate arterial phase images with reducing artifacts on gadoxetic acid-DTPA (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced hepatic MR imaging? J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 32(2):334–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pietryga JA, Burke LM, Marin D, Jaffe TA, Bashir MR (2014) Respiratory motion artifact affecting hepatic arterial phase imaging with gadoxetate disodium: examination recovery with a multiple arterial phase acquisition. Radiology 271(2):426–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yoo JL, Lee CH, Park YS et al (2016) The short breath-hold technique, controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration, can be the first step to overcoming a degraded hepatic arterial phase in liver magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective randomized control study. Investig Radiol 51(7):440–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim YK, Lin WC, Sung K et al (2017) Reducing artifacts during arterial phase of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging: dilution method versus reduced injection rate. Radiology 283(2):429–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McClellan TR, Motosugi U, Middleton MS et al (2017) Intravenous gadoxetate disodium administration reduces breath-holding capacity in the hepatic arterial phase: a multi-center randomized placebo-controlled trial. Radiology 282(2):361–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J et al (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Investig Radiol 40:715–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ringe KI et al (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(1):13–28. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grazioli L et al (2018) Evaluation of incidence of acute transient dyspnea and related artifacts after administration of gadoxetate disodium: a prospective observational study. La Radiol Med 123(12):910–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0927-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH, Kim EJ, Han JK (2016) Triple arterial phase MR imaging with gadoxetic acid using a combination of contrast enhanced time robust angiography, keyhole, and viewsharing techniques and two-dimensional parallel imaging in comparison with conventional single arterial phase. Korean J Radiol 17(4):522–532. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.522

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zech CJ, Vos B, Nordell A et al (2009) Vascular enhancement in early dynamic liver MR imaging in an animal model: comparison of two injection regimen and two different doses Gd-EOB-DTPA (gadoxetic acid) with standard Gd-DTPA. Investig Radiol 44:305–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2009) Dilution method of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylene-triaminepenta-acetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). J Magn Reson Imaging 30:849–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tamada T, Ito K, Yoshida K, Kanki A, Higaki A, Tanimoto D, Higashi H (2011) Comparison of three different injection methods for arterial phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR imaging of the liver. Eur J Radiol 80(3):e284–e288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.082(Epub 2011 Feb 5 PubMed PMID: 21296514)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McVeigh ER et al (1985) Noise and filtration in magnetic resonance imaging. Med Phys 12(5):586–591. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang SY et al (2015) Body MR imaging: artifacts, k-space, and solutions. Radiographics 35(5):1439–1460. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140289

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Vikhoff-Baaz B et al (2001) Effects of k-space filtering and image interpolation on image fidelity in 1H MRSI. Magn Reson Imaging 19(9):1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0730-725x(01)00456-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Block KT et al (2008) Suppression of MRI truncation artifacts using total variation constrained data extrapolation. Int J Biomed Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/184123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Bellin M-F (2006) MR contrast agents, the old and the new. Eur J Radiol 60(3):314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.06.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No supporting funding were employed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Via Pergolesi 33, 20900, Monza, MB, Italy

    Davide Ippolito, Cesare Maino, Anna Pecorelli, Luca Riva, Giulia Querques & Cammillo Talei Franzesi

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Papa Giovanni XIII Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, 24127, Bergamo, BG, Italy

    Sandro Sironi

Authors
  1. Davide Ippolito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cesare Maino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Pecorelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca Riva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giulia Querques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cammillo Talei Franzesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sandro Sironi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Ippolito.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ippolito, D., Maino, C., Pecorelli, A. et al. Influence of injection rate in determining the development of artifacts during the acquisition of dynamic arterial phase in Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI studies. Magn Reson Mater Phy 34, 133–140 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-020-00857-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-020-00857-1

Keyword

Search

Navigation