Gadobutrol 1.0-molar in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) - Further Enhancing the Capabilities of Contrast-enhanced MRI in Ischaemic and Non-ischaemic Heart Disease?

Login or register to view PDF.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2007.0.2.34

There are many things in life everybody wants more of, and this is particularly true for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The major challenge in the daily life of an MRI professional is gaining maximal image signal and contrast in a reasonable amount of time. The application of gadolinium (Gd)-based MR contrast material has offered contrast features in MRI that have been used and appreciated for almost 20 years in both neurological and whole-body MRI. For example, state-of-the-art MRI is not possible in brain tumours, vascular pathologies or focal liver disease without the use of Gd. Cardiac MRI has also benefited enormously from Gd enhancement; indeed, some of the most important and established cardiac MRI applications are based on the use of Gd contrast.1,2 Although there are strong data in support of the superiority of dedicated contrast-enhanced MRI techniques over other modalities in many clinical indications, there is still a need for improvements in image quality and stability, whether in terms of the hardware, software or ‘wetware’ (contrast agents). In terms of cardiac MRI, in general more contrast would be preferable since many cardiac pathologies are difficult to distinguish from normal myocardium. Therefore, the use of higher-concentration Gd compounds could improve the reliability of cardiac MRI. The aim of this article is to summarise recent knowledge about gadobutrol, the only approved 1.0-molar Gd contrast agent, in MR angiography (MRA) and neurological and whole-body MRI, and to provide an outlook on expected future developments in cardiac MRI.

Gadobutrol
Chemistry and Safety Profile

Most MR contrast media are based on Gd as a paramagnetic ion. The Gd3+ ion has strong magnetic properties, which lead primarily to a T1-relaxation shortening of protons and the production of a high signal in T1-weighted MR sequences. However, the free Gd3+ ion has to be bound in chelates to reduce unwanted side effects and create desirable pharmacokinetic properties.3 Many Gd-based contrast agents have been clinically approved and commercially available for more than a decade. Typically, Gd agents are extracellular, non-tissue-specific, non-protein-binding, water-soluble compounds such as gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA), gadoteridol (Gd-HPDO3A), gadoterate (Gd-DOTA), gadoversetamide (Gd-DTPABMEA) and gadodiamide (Gd-DTPA-BMA).4 Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) and gadofosveset, on the other hand, interact with serum albumin, resulting in a higher in vivo relaxivity and longer plasma half-lives. All of the abovementioned compounds are prepared at a concentration of 0.5mol/l.

Gadobutrol (Gd-BT-DO3A, Gadovist™, Bayer Healthcare, Leverkusen, Germany) is the only approved 1.0-molar solution of Gd; it is approved for cranial and spinal MRI, MRI of the liver and kidneys and contrast-enhanced MRA. Its cyclic ligand forms a macrocyclic, non-ionic Gd chelate that is both thermodynamically and kinetically very stable; the chelate is neutral and highly hydrophilic with low protein binding and good biological tolerance.5 The relaxivity of gadobutrol is higher than that of other non-protein-binding agents, leading to better image contrast.6 The safety profile of gadobutrol is comparable to that of the approved 0.5-molar Gd formulations. In a phase III multicentre trial, safety evaluations found a good tolerability, with only 4.6% of at least ‘possibly related’ adverse reactions in 435 patients undergoing gadobutrol-enhanced MRA at a mean dose of 0.18±0.05mmol/ kg bodyweight.3 No influence on renal function or clinically relevant changes in safety parameters were observed. It was therefore concluded that Gd-1.0- molar-enhanced MRI at clinical doses is safe; other studies have confirmed this.7,8 As regards the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) associated with Gd-based contrast agents, there have been no reports of NSF in association with the sole administration of gadobutrol as of November 2007. In one case of a dialysis patient, the administration of multiple injections of Gd-DOTA and a single injection of gadobutrol led to NSF.

Clinical Features of Gadobutrol 1.0-molar

There are four ways to improve image contrast when using Gd contrast agents, irrespective of the applied MR technique:

  • use higher Gd doses, which means injecting larger amounts of the drug;
  • administer contrast agents with a higher relaxivity (one of the advantages of protein-binding formulations);
  • form a ‘tight’ or ‘narrow’ bolus profile in MRA, which means there is a shorter but higher peak concentration of the agent at the time of sampling the centre of k-space – this can be achieved by applying optimised injection protocols; and
  • use a higher-concentration contrast agent formulation, which will lead to image contrast improvement.

Gadobutrol has promised to combine two of the above-mentioned features: compared with other non-protein-binding compounds it yields a higher relaxivity9 and, through the doubled concentration, tighter boluses seem possible with the same injection protocol and the same overall Gd dose. So, during ‘first-pass’ applications such as perfusion imaging and contrast-enhanced MRA, the reduction of the injection volume by 50% at comparable dose levels may yield a sharper bolus peak, which would be advantageous.

The Use of Gadobutrol in Non-cardiac Clinical Applications

Many studies have tested gadobutrol in MRA (see Figure 1). In a large multicentre trial, gadobutrol-enhanced MRA proved feasible compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) of the pelvic and thigh arteries.10 Goyen et al. found a dose-independent beneficial effect of gadobutrol, with contrast improvement in both whole-body and pelvic MRA.11,12 Another study in pelvic arteries confirmed these findings.13 On the other hand, no improvement has been found in pulmonary MRA14 or pulmonary perfusion imaging.15 This may be due to the T2* effects of high Gd doses in central vessels or difficulties in bolus timing to hit peak enhancement. In time-resolved MRA, a tighter bolus could help to enhance only one of the vessel territories and avoid overlay (see Figure 1). In terms of liver imaging, higher image contrast was found in hepato-cellular carcinoma, although there was no additional diagnostic yield.16 An animal study confirmed a higher image contrast when using the 1.0-molar formulation compared with the 0.5-molar formulation.17 An early study by Vogl et al. showed both better contrast features and higher diagnostic accuracy in patients with brain metastases when using high-dose gadobutrol compared with standard-dose Gd-DTPA.18 In terms of brain perfusion MRI, dynamic susceptibility imaging is performed. The T1-shortening features of Gd are not useful here, but the T2* effects that reduce the signal are used to depict and quantify cerebral perfusion defects in ischaemia or infarction. The relative signal reduction caused by the contrast agent depends on the dose, concentration and relaxivity of the contrast agent. Therefore, there is a benefit to the use of the 1.0-molar gadobutrol formulation compared with the 0.5-molar formulation in brain perfusion imaging.19 In two studies, Essig et al. confirmed the feasibility of gadobutrol in brain perfusion imaging, as well as its superiority to conventional Gd contrast agents.20,21 Thilmann et al. described the feasibility of gadobutrol also at 3T.22

Contrast-enhanced Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging – How to Benefit from Gadobutrol

MRI was used successfully in cardiac disease even before high-gradient scanners allowed ultra-fast imaging and contrast-enhanced cardiac imaging became possible. However, the major breakthrough of cardiac MRI as a reliable tool in clinical cardiology – indeed, it is the standard of reference in certain indications nowadays – has been based on contrast-enhanced applications. Three clinical applications of contrast-enhanced cardiac MRI have been broadly used. The following paragraphs will describe these three techniques, as well as proven and possible benefits arising from higher-concentration contrast agents such as gadobutrol.

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Coronary Artery Disease

There is a large amount of interest surrounding the use of non-invasive imaging techniques in the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly in the early detection of CAD in its asymptomatic stages. A decrease in myocardial perfusion under stress conditions represents the first effect of occlusive CAD. Therefore, the assessment of myocardial perfusion seems to be the most promising basis for a non-invasive test to detect early CAD. Perfusion MRI – based on ultra-fast, time-resolved T1-weighted data sets acquired during injection of an intravenously administered contrast bolus using the first-pass kinetics of the contrast – has been developed to approach CAD.23–25 The resulting differences in signal intensity of normally perfused myocardium compared with myocardium that is undersupplied by an occluded coronary artery allow myocardial perfusion to be assessed (see Figure 2). The first successful patient study on perfusion MRI was published in 1991;23 several clinical studies have since confirmed its feasibility.25

Perfusion MRI requires the injection of a tight contrast bolus, which is tracked during the first pass across myocardial circulation. The increase of the blood pool and myocardial signal intensities due to the T1-shortening effect of gadolinium depends on the maximum arterial Gd concentration, which is proportional to the flow rate of the intravenous injection and inversely proportional to the cardiac output. The employed contrast doses vary between 0.025 and 0.15mmol/kg of extracellular Gd chelates in different studies,26 but most of the studies used 0.5-molar Gd formulations. Gadobutrol has also been tested for advantages in myocardial perfusion imaging on the basis that the opportunity for tighter boluses using 1.0-molar agents as appreciated in MRA should also hold true for myocardial perfusion imaging. The feasibility of gadobutrol has been proved in clinical studies;27,28 however, in an early study the higher concentration of 1.0-molar gadobutrol did not increase the degree of signal intensity changes nor sharpen the bolus profile at the low application volumes used for myocardial perfusion imaging.29 In this context, in a recent study of 25 CAD patients Fenchel et al. showed the ability of gadobutrol perfusion to detect CAD to be comparable to that of 0.5-molar agents, although “favourable signal properties were exhibited in phantom studies”.30 In summary, early clinical studies suggest that there is no clinical benefit of the higher-concentration Gd compound despite the superior contrast features. Further studies are needed to compare 0.5- and 1.0-molar agents.

Myocardial Viability Imaging – Scar Detection in Chronic Myocardial Infarction

Myocardial viability imaging is the most established and robust technique in contrast-enhanced cardiac MRI, and the ‘late gadolinium enhancement’ (LGE) method is at the forefront of MRI in clinical cardiology. LGE refers to delayed hyperenhancement that is observed during the equilibrium phase following intravenous contrast administration. Unlike early first-pass imaging, delayed-enhancement imaging does not assess myocardial perfusion, but rather is used in the detection of myocardial changes such as scar, oedema, necrosis and fibrosis. The main application of LGE is differentiating functionally abnormal but viable (hibernating) myocardium from irreversibly damaged myocardium (scar) in patients with global or regional myocardial dysfunction. It has been shown that late accumulation of gadolinium in chronic myocardial infarction reflects irreversible damage.31,32 Studies in CAD patients have, in this context, proved MRI to be superior to standard methods.33–35 In recent years, LGE in chronic infarction has even been proved to be a prognostic factor for major cardiac events and cardiac mortality.36 Therefore, LGE imaging has quickly become an established clinical tool and the standard of reference owing to its ease of application, robustness and unique value in differential diagnosis. In 2001, Simonetti et al. designed an optimised electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggered, segmented inversion–recovery turbo-gradient echo sequence that has become the standard for this type of investigation.37 The key improvement over all previously used sequences is the use of an inversion pulse to produce maximum contrast between normal and abnormal myocardium after contrast administration. This sequence has been proved to be very robust and stable, yielding high contrast between LGE areas – representing scar – and normal, viable myocardium (see Figure 3). Some comparison studies published as abstracts or conference proceedings show that gadobutrol offers higher signal-to-noise and contrast-to- noise ratios in LGE of chronic myocardial infarction. However, due to the intrinsic high contrast between enhancing scar and normal myocardium, there may not be a significant benefit of gadobutrol compared with 0.5- molar Gd formulations. Further studies are needed to investigate whether gadobutrol can improve the technique in certain indications.

Late Enhancement in Cardiomyopathy and Inflammation

While LGE is highly sensitive for myocardial infarction, it is not specific for ischaemic damage since Gd generally accumulates in tissue with increased water content. Thus, LGE occurs in myocardial areas of fibrosis, inflammation and oedema of any kind where the extracellular volume is enlarged.38–40

The knowledge of different patterns and locations of LGE in specific diseases seems to facilitate the differential diagnosis of non-ischaemic heart disease.41,42 Gd-enhanced MRI has been applied in inflammatory diseases of the myocardium.43 In acute myocarditis and peri-myocarditis, as well as in chronic lymphocytic myocarditis, areas of LGE seem to represent higher activity of the inflammatory process.44,45 Friedrich et al. applied Gd to monitor tissue changes in viral myocarditis and found that MRI is able to identify localisation, activity and extent of the inflammation by defining the area of enhancement.40 LGE was found in the subendocardial, subepicardial or mid-portions of the left ventricular (LV) wall, but none of the subjects in this study showed transmural LGE. Therefore, the localisation of LGE may help to characterise myocarditis. Patients with cardiac sarcoid show patchy, diffuse or sharply demarcated LGE, which is partially transmural46 and may disappear or diminish after therapy47 (see Figure 4). Many other myocardial inflammatory or ‘infiltrative’ diseases also present with LGE. Secondary fibrotic tissue replacement as well as primary cardiomyopathy may present with LGE. In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients, a typical LGE pattern has been described in animal39 and human studies48 as being subepicardial or in the middle of the wall and not sharply delineated (see Figure 5). In contrast, patients with dilative cardiomyopathy often reveal a very sharp delineated band of mid-ventricular LGE, which has very recently been described as pathognomonic for this particular type of disease.49 ‘Fibro-fatty’ myocardial replacement of the right ventricular (RV) wall has been reported to present with LGE in arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy/dysplasia,50–52 which may make diagnosis easier in this particular patient cohort.

In general, the typical location and pattern of LGE help to distinguish cardiomyopathy from chronic infarction. Among the various non-ischaemic pathologies, LGE seems to enhance diagnostic capabilities. However, in contrast to acute or chronic infarction, in many cases of inflammation or cardiomyopathy only very weak and indistinguishable LGE may be seen. Often, one wishes to produce higher contrast to reliably distinguish hyperintense areas within the myocardium from artefacts. Although there are currently no available studies comparing gadobutrol with 0.5-molar Gd compounds, the large range of non-ischaemic heart diseases may be a target group for gadobutrol in view of stronger contrast leading to more reliable diagnosis.

Conclusions

Gadobutrol as the only approved 1.0-molar Gd-based MR contrast agent has been widely used in clinical routine. The combination of higher Gd concentration and improved relaxivity makes it a valuable tool when used like any other conventional Gd-based agent. In some indications – such as brain perfusion imaging and, particularly, MRA – gadobutrol has been proved to be superior to the conventional extracellular 0.5-molar agents. With regard to contrast-enhanced applications in cardiac MRI, only a few studies are available on the possible additional value of gadobutrol. In viability imaging using the LGE technique, gadobutrol seems to offer higher contrast between scar and normal myocardium. However, due to the high intrinsic contrast, there may be no significant benefit in terms of diagnostic quality. While gadobutrol seems feasible and equivalent to other Gd compounds in myocardial perfusion imaging, no clinical benefit has been exhibited so far. The field of LGE in non-ischaemic myocardial disease such as inflammation and cardiomyopathy seems to be the most exciting. Although no studies have been published on this particular topic, it can be suggested that those conditions with low intrinsic contrast benefit from both the higher Gd concentration and the relaxivity of gadobutrol compared with other compounds. In myocardial areas of subtle fibrosis or oedema, one has to rely on the highest possible contrast. Therefore, larger studies are needed to prove the theory that gadobutrol offers higher diagnostic accuracy.

References
  1. Edelman RR, Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the heart: overview of the literature, Radiology, 2004;232:653–68.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Schneider G, et al., Contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2003;14:386–402.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Balzer JO, Loewe C, Davis K, et al., Safety of contrast-enhanced MR angiography employing gadobutrol 1.0 M as contrast material, Eur Radiol, 2003;13:2067–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Tombach B, Heindel W, Value of 1.0- M gadolinium chelates: review of preclinical and clinical data on gadobutrol, Eur Radiol, 2002;12:1550–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Platzek J, et al., Synthesis and Structure of a New Macrocyclic Polyhydroxylated Gadolinium Chelate Used as a Contrast Agent for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Inorg Chem, 1997;36:6086–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Huppertz A, Rohrer M, Gadobutrol, a highly concentrated MRimaging contrast agent: its physicochemical characteristics and the basis for its use in contrast-enhanced MR angiography and perfusion imaging, Eur Radiol, 2004;14(Suppl. 5):M12–18.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Staks T, et al., Pharmacokinetics, dose proportionality, and tolerability of gadobutrol after single intravenous injection in healthy volunteers, Invest Radiol, 1994;29:709–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Benner T, Reimer P, Erb G, et al., Cerebral MR perfusion imaging: first clinical application of a 1 M gadolinium chelate (Gadovist 1.0) in a double-blinded randomized dose-finding study, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2000;12:371–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, et al., Relaxivity of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine (Magnevist), Gadobutrol (Gadovist), and Gadobenate Dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla, Invest Radiol, 2006;41:213–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Hentsch A, et al., Gadobutrol-enhanced moving-table magnetic resonance angiography in patients with peripheral vascular disease: a prospective, multi-centre blinded comparison with digital subtraction angiography, Eur Radiol, 2003;13:2103–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Goyen M, Herborn CU, Vogt FM, et al., Using a 1 M Gd-chelate (gadobutrol) for total-body three-dimensional MR angiography: preliminary experience, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2003;17:565–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Goyen M, Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, et al., 0.5 M Gd chelate (Magnevist) versus 1.0 M Gd chelate (Gadovist): doseindependent effect on image quality of pelvic three-dimensional MR-angiography, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2001;14:602–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Herborn CU, et al., Intraindividual comparison of gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadobenate dimeglumine, and gadobutrol for pelvic 3D magnetic resonance angiography, Invest Radiol, 2003;38:27–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Fink C, et al., Time-resolved contrast-enhanced three-dimensional pulmonary MR-angiography: 1.0 M gadobutrol vs. 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2004;19:202–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Fink C, Puderbach M, Ley S, et al., Contrast-enhanced threedimensional pulmonary perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M Gd- DTPA at three dose levels, Invest Radiol, 2004;39:143–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Kim YK, et al., Double-dose 1.0-M gadobutrol versus standarddose 0.5-M gadopentetate dimeglumine in revealing small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas, Eur Radiol, 2007.
  17. Kawai J, Takahashi M, Kato N, et al., Comparison of a 1.0 molar and a 0.5 molar formulation of gadobutrol in dynamic MR imaging of the liver in rats with hepatocellular carcinoma, Magn Reson Imaging, 1999;17:91–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Vogl TJ, et al., Diagnosis of cerebral metastasis with standard dose gadobutrol vs. a high dose protocol. Intraindividual evaluation of a phase II high dose study, Radiologe, 1995;35:508–16.
    PubMed
  19. Tombach B, et al., Do highly concentrated gadolinium chelates improve MR brain perfusion imaging? Intraindividually controlled randomized crossover concentration comparison study of 0.5 versus 1.0 mol/L gadobutrol, Radiology, 2003;226:880–88.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Essig M, et al., Intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for cerebral magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 1.5 T, Invest Radiol, 2006;41:256–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Essig M, Lodemann KP, LeHuu M, et al., Comparison of MultiHance and Gadovist for cerebral MR perfusion imaging in healthy volunteers, Radiologe, 2002;42:909–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Thilmann O, et al., Comparison of contrast agents with high molarity and with weak protein binding in cerebral perfusion imaging at 3 T, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2005;22:597–604.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Manning WJ, Atkinson DJ, et al., First-pass nuclear magnetic resonance imaging studies using gadolinium-DTPA in patients with coronary artery disease, J Am Coll Cardiol, 1991;18:959–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Prasad SK, Lyne J, Chai P, et al., Role of CMR in assessment of myocardial perfusion, Eur Radiol, 2005;15(Suppl. 2):B42–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Wilke NM, Jerosch-Herold M, et al., Magnetic resonance firstpass myocardial perfusion imaging: clinical validation and future applications, J Magn Reson Imaging, 1999;10:676–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Hunold P, et al., Magnetic resonance cardiac perfusion imaging-a clinical perspective, Eur Radiol, 2006;16:1779–88.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Theisen D, et al., Myocardial first pass perfusion imaging with gadobutrol: impact of parallel imaging algorithms on image quality and signal behavior, Invest Radiol, 2007;42:522–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Theisen D, et al., Myocardial perfusion imaging with Gadobutrol: a comparison between 3 and 1.5 Tesla with an identical sequence design, Invest Radiol, 2007;42:499–506.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Tombach B, Reimer P, Prumer B, et al., Does a higher concentration of gadolinium chelates improve first-pass cardiac signal changes?, J Magn Reson Imaging, 1999;10:806–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Fenchel M, Franow A, Martirosian P, et al., 1 M Gd-chelate (gadobutrol) for multislice first-pass magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging, Br J Radiol, 2007;80:884–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, et al., Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function, Circulation, 1999;100:1992–2002.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Rehwald WG, Fieno DS, et al., Myocardial magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent concentrations after reversible and irreversible ischemic injury, Circulation, 2002;105:224–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Ramani K, Judd RM, Holly TA, et al., Contrast magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of myocardial viability in patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction, Circulation, 1998;98:2687–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Klein C, et al., Assessment of myocardial viability with contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography, Circulation, 2002;105:162–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Hunold P, et al., Evaluation of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging—comparison of the late enhancement technique with positronemission tomography, Röfo Fortschr Röntgenstr, 2002;174:867–73.
    Crossref
  36. Kwong RY, et al., Impact of unrecognized myocardial scar detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on event-free survival in patients presenting with signs or symptoms of coronary artery disease, Circulation, 2006;113:2733–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Simonetti OP, et al., An improved MR imaging technique for the visualization of myocardial infarction, Radiology, 2001;218:215–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Bogaert J, Taylor AM, Van Kerkhove F, et al., Use of Inversion Recovery Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Cardiac Imaging: Spectrum of Applications, Am J Roentgenol, 2004;182:609–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Aso H, Takeda K, Ito T, et al., Assessment of myocardial fibrosis in cardiomyopathic hamsters with gadolinium-DTPA enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Invest Radiol, 1998;33:22–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Friedrich MG, et al., Contrast media-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging visualizes myocardial changes in the course of viral myocarditis, Circulation, 1998;97:1802–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Bogaert J, Dymarkowski S, Delayed contrast-enhanced MRI: use in myocardial viability assessment and other cardiac pathology, Eur Radiol, 2005;15(Suppl. 2):B52–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Hunold P, et al., Myocardial late enhancement in contrast-enhanced cardiac MRI: distinction between infarction scar and non-infarctionrelated disease, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005;184:1420–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Brasch RC, Weinmann HJ, Wesbey GE, Contrast-enhanced NMR imaging: animal studies using gadolinium-DTPA complex, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1984;142:625–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Matsouka H, Hamada M, Honda T, et al., Evaluation of acute myocarditis and pericarditis by Gd-DTPA enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Eur Heart J, 1994;15:283–4.
    PubMed
  45. Bellotti G, Bocchi EA, de Moraes AV, et al., In vivo detection of Trypanosoma cruzi antigens in hearts of patients with chronic Chagas’ heart disease, Am Heart J, 1996;131:301–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Schulz-Menger J, et al., Visualization of cardiac involvement in patients with systemic sarcoidosis applying contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Magma, 2000;11:82–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Shimada T, et al., Diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis and evaluation of the effects of steroid therapy by gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Am J Med, 2001;110:520–27.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Koito H, et al., Clinical significance of abnormal high signal intensity of left ventricular myocardium by gadoliniumdiethylenetriaminepenta- acetic acid enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, J Cardiol, 1995;25:163–70.
    PubMed
  49. McCrohon JA, Moon JC, Prasad SK, et al., Differentiation of heart failure related to dilated cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease using gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance, Circulation, 2003;108:54–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Hunold P, Wieneke H, Bruder O, et al., Late enhancement: a new feature in MRI of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy?, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2005;7:649–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Lobo FV, et al., Left ventricular involvement in right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy, Can J Cardiol, 1999;15:1239–47.
    PubMed
  52. Molinari G, Sardanelli F, Zandrino F, et al., Adipose replacement and wall motion abnormalities in right ventricle arrhythmias: evaluation by MR imaging. Retrospective evaluation on 124 patients, Int J Card Imaging, 2000;16:105–15.
    Crossref | PubMed