Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities.

<bold>Objectives: </bold>MR venography (MRV) protocols have used bloodpool contrast agents and long scan sequences to identify patients suitable for treatment and preoperatively. However, variable availability of bloodpool contrast agents, high costs and a need to shorten acquisition times for routine MR protocols hamper everyday practice.<bold>Materials: </bold>20 patients (11 men; mean age 54 ± 11.8 years; body mass index 23.6 ± 2.5) were enrolled in this prospective study. An intra-individual comparison of image quality, interpretation and findings for two different contrast agents (regular gadolinium contrast agent gadobutrol vs. bloodpool contrast agent gadofosveset-trisodium) and two different scan protocols (long acquisition time protocol using a high-resolution fast field echo (FFE) sequence vs. short acquisition time protocol using an ultra-fast gradient echo (GE) sequence) were performed.<bold>Results: </bold>Image quality (average of 4.94 vs. 4.92 on a five-point scale), interpretation and contrast-to-noise ratio (44 vs. 45) were equal for both contrast agents. Image findings showed no statistical significant differences between the MR protocols or contrast agents (overall p = 0.328).<bold>Conclusions: </bold>For high-resolution MRV, it is possible to replace gadofosveset-trisodium with gadobutrol. Furthermore, an ultra-fast GE sequence for MRV might considerably shorten acquisition time, without loss of image quality or diagnostic yield.<bold>Key Points: </bold>• High-quality MRV can be performed with a regular gadolinium-based contrast agent. • Ultra-fast GRE vs. HR-FFE MRV: equally suitable for evaluation of venous obstruction. • Regular gadolinium-based contrast agent can supersede a bloodpool contrast agent for MRV. • Equal confidence for gadobutrol vs gadofosveset-trisodium in MRV. • MRV accessible for routine daily practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]