1
|
Gallo-Bernal S, Patino-Jaramillo N, Calixto CA, Higuera SA, Forero JF, Lara Fernandes J, Góngora C, Gee MS, Ghoshhajra B, Medina HM. Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease after the Use of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents: A Review for the Cardiovascular Imager. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12081816. [PMID: 36010167 PMCID: PMC9406537 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081816] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2022] [Revised: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance has revolutionized cardiac imaging in the last two decades and has emerged as an essential and powerful tool for the characterization and treatment guidance of a wide range of cardiovascular diseases. However, due to the high prevalence of chronic renal dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular conditions, the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) after gadolinium exposure has been a permanent concern. Even though the newer macrocyclic agents have proven to be much safer in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal failure, clinicians must fully understand the clinical characteristics and risk factors of this devastating pathology and maintain a high degree of suspicion to prevent and recognize it. This review aimed to summarize the existing evidence regarding the physiopathology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and prevention of NSF related to the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Gallo-Bernal
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA;
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
- Correspondence:
| | - Nasly Patino-Jaramillo
- Division of Cardiology, Fundacion Cardioinfantil-LaCardio, Bogota 110131, Colombia; (N.P.-J.); (S.A.H.); (H.M.M.)
| | - Camilo A. Calixto
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
- Department of Radiology Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Sergio A. Higuera
- Division of Cardiology, Fundacion Cardioinfantil-LaCardio, Bogota 110131, Colombia; (N.P.-J.); (S.A.H.); (H.M.M.)
| | - Julian F. Forero
- Division of Radiology, Fundacion Cardioinfantil-LaCardio, Bogota 110131, Colombia;
| | - Juliano Lara Fernandes
- Jose Michel Kalaf Research Institute, Radiologia Clinica de Campinas, São Paulo 13092-123, Brazil;
| | - Carlos Góngora
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center (CIRC), Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (C.G.); (B.G.)
| | - Michael S. Gee
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA;
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
| | - Brian Ghoshhajra
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
- Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center (CIRC), Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA; (C.G.); (B.G.)
| | - Hector M. Medina
- Division of Cardiology, Fundacion Cardioinfantil-LaCardio, Bogota 110131, Colombia; (N.P.-J.); (S.A.H.); (H.M.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moon WJ, Cho YA, Hahn S, Son HM, Woo SK, Lee YH. The Pattern of Use, Effectiveness, and Safety of Gadoteric Acid (Clariscan) in Patients Undergoing Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2021; 2021:4764348. [PMID: 34803545 DOI: 10.1155/2021/4764348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Objective Contrast-enhanced MR (CE-MR) imaging is often required to improve lesion detection and characterization and to increase diagnostic confidence. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness, as well as the use pattern, of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent Clariscan in real-world clinical practice in Korea. Materials and Methods This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study of patients undergoing CE-MR as part of routine clinical care at 6 university hospitals in Korea. Effectiveness was evaluated by determining diagnostic confidence and image quality; safety evaluation included the adverse event (AE) expression rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted by body regions of diagnosis (musculoskeletal, nervous system, others) and in pediatric patients (aged ≤7 years). Results From October 2019 to September 2020, 1,376 subjects were included in the study. The mean volume of Clariscan used was 0.26 mL/kg (0.13 mmol/kg). In the overall study population and in each subgroup, diagnostic confidence increased after contrast enhancement with Clariscan. Overall, image quality was excellent in 72.5% of subjects and good-to-adequate in 27.2%. Clariscan was well tolerated (14 AEs occurred in 10 subjects); all AEs were of mild severity. Subgroup analyses showed that the mean dose of Clariscan used was ≥0.1 mmol/kg for nervous system-related diagnoses (e.g., brain) and ≤0.1 mmol/kg for musculoskeletal and pediatric-related diagnoses. All musculoskeletal and pediatric examinations were provided with a smaller package of 5 mL Clariscan. By body region of MR examination, the most common region was the nervous system in 69.0%, musculoskeletal system in 13.6%, and reproductive system in 4.9%. Conclusions This study confirmed the use pattern of Clariscan and its excellent effectiveness and safety in the real-world clinical environment in Korea. The small-dose package indicated the possibility of increasing the convenience and efficiency of drug use.
Collapse
|
3
|
Kuhn MJ, Patriarche JW, Patriarche D, Kirchin MA, Bona M, Pirovano G. The TRUTH confirmed: validation of an intraindividual comparison of gadobutrol and gadoteridol for imaging of glioblastoma using quantitative enhancement analysis. Eur Radiol Exp 2021; 5:46. [PMID: 34635965 PMCID: PMC8505590 DOI: 10.1186/s41747-021-00240-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous intraindividual comparative studies evaluating gadobutrol and gadoteridol for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain tumours have relied on subjective image assessment, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. We used artificial intelligence algorithms to objectively compare the enhancement achieved with these contrast agents in glioblastoma patients. METHODS Twenty-seven patients from a prior study who received identical doses of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobutrol and gadoteridol (with appropriate washout in between) were evaluated. Quantitative enhancement (QE) maps of the normalised enhancement of voxels, derived from computations based on the comparison of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images relative to the harmonised intensity on unenhanced T1-weighted images, were compared. Bland-Altman analysis, linear regression analysis and Pearson correlation coefficient (r) determination were performed to compare net QE and per-region of interest (per-ROI) average QE (net QE divided by the number of voxels). RESULTS No significant differences were observed for comparisons performed on net QE (mean difference -24.37 ± 620.8, p = 0.840, r = 0.989) or per-ROI average QE (0.0043 ± 0.0218, p = 0.313, r = 0.958). Bland-Altman analysis revealed better per-ROI average QE for gadoteridol-enhanced MRI in 19/27 (70.4%) patients although the mean difference (0.0043) was close to zero indicating high concordance and the absence of fixed bias. CONCLUSIONS The enhancement of glioblastoma achieved with gadoteridol and gadobutrol at 0.1 mmol/kg bodyweight is similar indicating that these agents have similar contrast efficacy and can be used interchangeably, confirming the results of a prior double-blind, randomised, intraindividual, crossover study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Kuhn
- University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, 221 NE Glen Oak Ave, Peoria, IL, 61636, USA. .,A.I. Analysis, Inc., 1425 Broadway #20-2656, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA.
| | | | | | - Miles A Kirchin
- Global Medical & Regulatory Affairs, Bracco Imaging SpA, Via Caduti di Marcinelle, 13, 20134, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Bona
- Global Medical & Regulatory Affairs, Bracco Imaging SpA, Via Caduti di Marcinelle, 13, 20134, Milan, Italy
| | - Gianpaolo Pirovano
- Global Medical & Regulatory Affairs, Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., 259 Prospect Plains Rd. Building H, Monroe Township, NJ, 08831, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rudnick MR, Wahba IM, Leonberg-Yoo AK, Miskulin D, Litt HI. Risks and Options With Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Patients With CKD: A Review. Am J Kidney Dis 2020; 77:517-528. [PMID: 32861792 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2020] [Accepted: 07/01/2020] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) improve the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance imaging. Although initially believed to be without major adverse effects, GBCA use in patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) was demonstrated to cause nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). Restrictive policies of GBCA use in CKD and selective use of GBCAs that bind free gadolinium more strongly have resulted in the virtual elimination of NSF cases. Contemporary studies of the use of GBCAs with high binding affinity for free gadolinium in severe CKD demonstrate an absence of NSF. Despite these observations and the limitations of contemporary studies, physicians remain concerned about GBCA use in severe CKD. Concerns of GBCA use in severe CKD are magnified by recent observations demonstrating gadolinium deposition in brain and a possible systemic syndrome attributed to GBCAs. Radiologic advances have resulted in several new imaging modalities that can be used in the severe CKD population and that do not require GBCA administration. In this article, we critically review GBCA use in patients with severe CKD and provide recommendations regarding GBCA use in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael R Rudnick
- Division of Nephrology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, PA.
| | - Ihab M Wahba
- Division of Nephrology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, PA; Corporal Michael J Crescenz Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Hospital Philadelphia, PA
| | - Amanda K Leonberg-Yoo
- Division of Nephrology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, PA
| | - Dana Miskulin
- Division of Nephrology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | - Harold I Litt
- Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lunyera J, Mohottige D, Alexopoulos AS, Campbell H, Cameron CB, Sagalla N, Amrhein TJ, Crowley MJ, Dietch JR, Gordon AM, Kosinski AS, Cantrell S, Williams JW, Gierisch JM, Ear B, Goldstein KM. Risk for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis After Exposure to Newer Gadolinium Agents: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173:110-119. [PMID: 32568573 PMCID: PMC7847719 DOI: 10.7326/m20-0299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) after exposure to newer versus older gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) remains unclear. PURPOSE To synthesize evidence about NSF risk with newer versus older GBCAs across the spectrum of kidney function. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for English-language references from inception to 5 March 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that assessed NSF occurrence after GBCA exposure. DATA EXTRACTION Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by a second. Investigator pairs assessed risk of bias by using validated tools. DATA SYNTHESIS Of 32 included studies, 20 allowed for assessment of NSF risk after exposure to newer GBCAs and 12 (11 cohort studies and 1 case-control study) allowed for comparison of NSF risk between newer and older GBCAs. Among 83 291 patients exposed to newer GBCAs, no NSF cases developed (exact 95% CI, 0.0001 to 0.0258 case). Among the 12 studies (n = 118 844) that allowed risk comparison between newer and older GBCAs, 37 NSF cases developed after exposure to older GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0001 to 0.0523 case) and 4 occurred (3 confounded) after exposure to newer GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0018 to 0.0204 case). Data were scant for patients with acute kidney injury or those at risk for chronic kidney disease. LIMITATIONS Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Risk of bias was high in most studies because of inadequate exposure and outcome ascertainment. CONCLUSION Although NSF occurrence after exposure to newer GBCAs is very rare, the relatively scarce data among patients with acute kidney injury and those with risk factors for chronic kidney disease limit conclusions about safety in these populations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135783).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph Lunyera
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina (J.L., C.B.C.)
| | - Dinushika Mohottige
- Duke University School of Medicine and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (D.M.)
| | - Anastasia-Stefania Alexopoulos
- Duke University Medical Center and Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (A.A., T.J.A., M.J.C.)
| | - Hilary Campbell
- Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (H.C.)
| | - C Blake Cameron
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina (J.L., C.B.C.)
| | - Nicole Sagalla
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina (N.S.)
| | - Timothy J Amrhein
- Duke University Medical Center and Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (A.A., T.J.A., M.J.C.)
| | - Matthew J Crowley
- Duke University Medical Center and Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (A.A., T.J.A., M.J.C.)
| | - Jessica R Dietch
- Stanford University and Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California (J.R.D.)
| | - Adelaide M Gordon
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (A.M.G., B.E.)
| | - Andrzej S Kosinski
- Duke University Medical Center and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina (A.S.K.)
| | - Sarah Cantrell
- Duke University School of Medicine and Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives, Durham, North Carolina (S.C.)
| | - John W Williams
- Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (J.W.W., K.M.G.)
| | - Jennifer M Gierisch
- Duke University School of Medicine, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (J.M.G.)
| | - Belinda Ear
- Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (A.M.G., B.E.)
| | - Karen M Goldstein
- Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina (J.W.W., K.M.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Del Poggio A, Anello G, Calloni SF, Vezzulli P, Pereira C, Iadanza A, Falini A, Anzalone N. Diagnostic efficacy and safety of gadoteridol compared to gadobutrol and gadoteric acid in a large sample of CNS MRI studies at 1.5T. J Neuroradiol 2020; 49:73-79. [PMID: 32603767 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2020.06.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2020] [Revised: 06/10/2020] [Accepted: 06/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate safety and diagnostic accuracy of gadoteridol vs. other macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) in a large cohort of consecutive and non-selected patients referred for CE-MRI of the CNS. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between November 2017 and March 2018, we prospectively enrolled a consecutive cohort of patients referred for neuroradiological CE-MRI (1.5T MRI). Image quality and adverse events were assessed. Diagnostic performance was determined for a subgroup of patients with truth standard findings available. Comparison was made between patients receiving gadoteridol and patients receiving other macrocyclic GBCAs. Inter-reader agreement (kappa) between two expert neuroradiologists was calculated for the diagnosis of malignancy. RESULTS Overall, 460 patients (220M/240F; mean age 54±16 years) were enrolled of which 230 received gadoteridol (Group 1) and 230 either gadoteric acid or gadobutrol [n=83 (36.1%) and n=147 (63.9%), respectively; Group 2]. Image quality was rated as good or excellent in both groups. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for determination of malignancy was 88.2%, 96.5% and 95.4%, respectively, for Group 1 and 93.7%, 97.4% and 96.9%, respectively, for Group 2, with no significant differences between groups (P>0.75) for any determination. Inter-reader agreement for the identification of malignancy was excellent [K=0.877 (95%CI: 0.758-0.995) and K=0.818 (95%CI: 0.663-0.972) for groups 1 and 2, respectively; P=0.0913]. Adverse events occurred in 5 of 460 (1.09%) patients overall, with no significant difference (P=0.972) between groups. CONCLUSION Gadoteridol was safe and guaranteed good image quality without significant differences when compared to gadobutrol and gadoteric acid in a wide range of CNS pathologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Del Poggio
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Sonia Francesca Calloni
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Vezzulli
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | - Clodoaldo Pereira
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonella Iadanza
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Falini
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicoletta Anzalone
- Department of Neuroradiology and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Woolen SA, Shankar PR, Gagnier JJ, MacEachern MP, Singer L, Davenport MS. Risk of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis in Patients With Stage 4 or 5 Chronic Kidney Disease Receiving a Group II Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180:223-230. [PMID: 31816007 PMCID: PMC6902198 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 130] [Impact Index Per Article: 32.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) to individual patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD; defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) who receive a group II gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) is not well understood or summarized in the literature. OBJECTIVE To assess the pooled risk of NSF in patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD receiving a group II GBCA. DATA SOURCES A health sciences informationist searched the Ovid (MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citation, and Daily and Versions), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases from inception to January 29, 2019, yielding 2700 citations. STUDY SELECTION Citations were screened for inclusion in a multistep process. Agreement for final cohort inclusion was determined by 2 blinded screeners using Cohen κ. Inclusion criteria consisted of stage 4 or 5 CKD with or without dialysis, administration of an unconfounded American College of Radiology classification group II GBCA (gadobenate dimeglumine, gadobutrol, gadoterate meglumine, or gadoteridol), and incident NSF as an outcome. Conference abstracts, retracted manuscripts, narrative reviews, editorials, case reports, and manuscripts not reporting total group II GBCA administrations were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extraction was performed for all studies by a single investigator, including publication details, study design and time frame, patient characteristics, group II GBCA(s) administered, total exposures for patients with stage 4 or stage 5 CKD, total cases of unconfounded NSF, reason for GBCA administration, follow-up duration, loss to follow-up, basis for NSF screening, and diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Pooled incidence of NSF and the associated upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI (risk estimate) for the pooled data and each of the 4 group II GBCAs. RESULTS Sixteen unique studies with 4931 patients were included (κ = 0.68) in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of NSF was 0 of 4931 (0%; upper bound of 95% CI, 0.07%). The upper bound varied owing to different sample sizes for gadobenate dimeglumine (0 of 3167; upper bound of 95% CI, 0.12%), gadoterate meglumine (0 of 1204; upper bound of 95% CI, 0.31%), gadobutrol (0 of 330; upper bound of 95% CI, 1.11%), and gadoteridol (0 of 230; upper bound of 95% CI, 1.59%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study's findings suggest that the risk of NSF from group II GBCA administration in stage 4 or 5 CKD is likely less than 0.07%. The potential diagnostic harms of withholding group II GBCA for indicated examinations may outweigh the risk of NSF in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO identifier: CRD42019123284.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean A Woolen
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Prasad R Shankar
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Joel J Gagnier
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | | - Lisa Singer
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Matthew S Davenport
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Department of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Cho SB, Lee AL, Chang HW, Kim KA, Yoo WJ, Yeom JA, Rho MH, Kim SJ, Lim YJ, Han M. Prospective Multicenter Study of the Safety of Gadoteridol in 6163 Patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 51:861-868. [PMID: 31663202 PMCID: PMC7027821 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26940] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2019] [Revised: 09/09/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The safety of gadolinium‐based contrast agents is of fundamental importance. Purpose To determine the frequency and severity of immediate‐type adverse reactions to approved doses of gadoteridol in patients referred for routine gadoteridol‐enhanced MRI in actual clinical practice settings. Study Type Prospective, observational. Population In all, 6163 subjects were enrolled (mean age: 56.7 ± 15.4 years; range: 6–93 years). Field Strength/Sequence 1.5T and 3.0T. Assessment Assessment was of immediate adverse reactions by the investigating radiologist using the MedDRA System Organ Class and preferred term. Statistical Tests Summary statistics for continuous variables, descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics. Results Overall, 19 adverse events occurred in 13 (0.21%) patients, of which 15 in 10 (0.16%) patients were considered related to gadoteridol administration. These events were evenly distributed between male and female subjects and all occurred in adults. Twelve of the 15 related events in eight (0.13%) patients were considered mild in intensity (rapidly self‐resolving), while the remaining three events in two patients (0.03%) were considered moderate in intensity. None were of severe intensity and no serious adverse events occurred. Data Conclusion The rate of immediate‐type adverse events following exposure to approved doses of gadoteridol is extremely low, and mostly limited to transient and self‐resolving symptoms. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:861–868.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sung Bum Cho
- Department of Radiology, Anam Hospital, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
| | - A-Leum Lee
- Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
| | - Hyuk Won Chang
- Department of Radiology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea
| | - Kyeong Ah Kim
- Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Won Jong Yoo
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
| | - Jeong A Yeom
- Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea
| | - Myung Ho Rho
- Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Jin Kim
- Department of Radiology, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea
| | - Yun-Jung Lim
- Department of Radiology, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea
| | - Miran Han
- Department of Radiology, Ajou University Medical Center, Suwon-si, Korea
| |
Collapse
|