open access

Ahead of print
Review article
Published online: 2020-09-21
Submitted: 2020-06-20
Accepted: 2020-07-28
Get Citation

Role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in neurological disorders

Weronika Golec, Aleksandra Jakimów-Kostrzewa, Bartosz Mruk, Sergiusz Jóźwiak
DOI: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2020.0070
·
Pubmed: 32955099

open access

Ahead of print
Review article
Published online: 2020-09-21
Submitted: 2020-06-20
Accepted: 2020-07-28

Abstract

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are widely used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to help with the diagnostic and monitoring processes of many diseases, including neurological disorders. Initially, it was assumed that GBCAs carry minimal risk, are safe and well tolerated. But recent reports of GBCA-associated deposition in many body tissues have raised concerns about the broader health impacts of gadolinium exposure. The aim of this review was to summarise knowledge regarding gadolinium deposition, primarily in the brain structures, and of potential GBCA-associated toxicity. Moreover, we discuss the current recommendations on the use of GBCAs, as well as alternative contrast agents and imaging techniques.

Abstract

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are widely used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to help with the diagnostic and monitoring processes of many diseases, including neurological disorders. Initially, it was assumed that GBCAs carry minimal risk, are safe and well tolerated. But recent reports of GBCA-associated deposition in many body tissues have raised concerns about the broader health impacts of gadolinium exposure. The aim of this review was to summarise knowledge regarding gadolinium deposition, primarily in the brain structures, and of potential GBCA-associated toxicity. Moreover, we discuss the current recommendations on the use of GBCAs, as well as alternative contrast agents and imaging techniques.

Get Citation

Keywords

gadolinium-based contrast agents, gadolinium deposition, alternative contrast agents, alternative imaging techniques

About this article
Title

Role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in neurological disorders

Journal

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

Issue

Ahead of print

Published online

2020-09-21

DOI

10.5603/PJNNS.a2020.0070

Pubmed

32955099

Keywords

gadolinium-based contrast agents
gadolinium deposition
alternative contrast agents
alternative imaging techniques

Authors

Weronika Golec
Aleksandra Jakimów-Kostrzewa
Bartosz Mruk
Sergiusz Jóźwiak

References (100)
  1. Almutairi A, Mahmud R, Suppiah S, et al. Accuracy of MRI Sequences in Detecting Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Lesions: A Systematic Review. Advances in Bioscience and Clinical Medicine. 2019; 7(2): 39.
  2. Bhargava R, Hahn G, Hirsch W, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: review and recommendations for current practice. Magn Reson Insights. 2013; 6: 95–111.
  3. Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J, et al. 25 Years of Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Developments, Current Challenges and Future Perspectives. Adv Ther. 2016; 33(1): 1–28.
  4. Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, et al. Gadolinium(III) Chelates as MRI Contrast Agents: Structure, Dynamics, and Applications. Chem Rev. 1999; 99(9): 2293–2352.
  5. Lauffer R. Paramagnetic metal complexes as water proton relaxation agents for NMR imaging: theory and design. Chemical Reviews. 1987; 87(5): 901–927.
  6. Essig M, Anzalone N, Combs SE, et al. MR imaging of neoplastic central nervous system lesions: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012; 33(5): 803–817.
  7. Fraum TJ, Ludwig DR, Bashir MR, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: A comprehensive risk assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 46(2): 338–353.
  8. Runge VM. Safety of the Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Focusing in Part on Their Accumulation in the Brain and Especially the Dentate Nucleus. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51(5): 273–279.
  9. Rogosnitzky M, Branch S. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. Biometals. 2016; 29(3): 365–376.
  10. Kanal E, Maravilla K, Rowley HA. Gadolinium contrast agents for CNS imaging: current concepts and clinical evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(12): 2215–2226.
  11. Bellin MF, Van Der Molen AJ. Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66(2): 160–167.
  12. Port M, Idée JM, Medina C, et al. Efficiency, thermodynamic and kinetic stability of marketed gadolinium chelates and their possible clinical consequences: a critical review. Biometals. 2008; 21(4): 469–490.
  13. Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, et al. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i.v. contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(6): 1533–1538.
  14. Ramalho M, Ramalho J. Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents: Associated Adverse Reactions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017; 25(4): 755–764.
  15. ACR Manual On Contrast Media 2020 ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ; 2020.
  16. Nelson KL, Gifford LM, Lauber-Huber C, et al. Clinical safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 1995; 196(2): 439–443.
  17. Behzadi AH, Zhao Y, Farooq Z, et al. Immediate Allergic Reactions to Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2018; 286(2): 471–482.
  18. ESUR Contrast Media Safety Guidelines. http://www.esur.org/esur-guidelines/ (10.2019).
  19. Tweedle MF, Wedeking P, Kumar K. Biodistribution of radiolabeled, formulated gadopentetate, gadoteridol, gadoterate, and gadodiamide in mice and rats. Invest Radiol. 1995; 30(6): 372–380.
  20. Gibby WA, Gibby KA, Gibby WA. Comparison of Gd DTPA-BMA (Omniscan) versus Gd HP-DO3A (ProHance) retention in human bone tissue by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. Invest Radiol. 2004; 39(3): 138–142.
  21. White GW, Gibby WA, Tweedle MF. Comparison of Gd(DTPA-BMA) (Omniscan) versus Gd(HP-DO3A) (ProHance) relative to gadolinium retention in human bone tissue by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Invest Radiol. 2006; 41(3): 272–278.
  22. Grobner T. Gadolinium--a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006; 21(4): 1104–1108.
  23. Schieda N, Blaichman JI, Costa AF, et al. Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Kidney Disease: Comprehensive Review and Clinical Practice Guideline Issued by the Canadian Association of Radiologists. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018; 69(2): 136–150.
  24. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, et al. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2014; 270(3): 834–841.
  25. Errante Y, Cirimele V, Mallio CA, et al. Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Invest Radiol. 2014; 49(10): 685–690.
  26. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, AlObaidy M, et al. Signal intensity change on unenhanced T1-weighted images in dentate nucleus following gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with and without previous multiple administrations of gadodiamide. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(11): 4080–4088.
  27. Roberts DR, Holden KR. Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in the pediatric brain exposed to multiple doses of gadolinium contrast. Brain Dev. 2016; 38(3): 331–336.
  28. Flood TF, Stence NV, Maloney JA, et al. Pediatric Brain: Repeated Exposure to Linear Gadolinium-based Contrast Material Is Associated with Increased Signal Intensity at Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Imaging. Radiology. 2017; 282(1): 222–228.
  29. Robert P, Violas X, Grand S, et al. Linear Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Are Associated With Brain Gadolinium Retention in Healthy Rats. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51(2): 73–82.
  30. Kanda T, Osawa M, Oba H, et al. High Signal Intensity in Dentate Nucleus on Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Images: Association with Linear versus Macrocyclic Gadolinium Chelate Administration. Radiology. 2015; 275(3): 803–809.
  31. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology. 2015; 275(3): 783–791.
  32. Radbruch A, Haase R, Kickingereder P, et al. Pediatric Brain: No Increased Signal Intensity in the Dentate Nucleus on Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Images after Consecutive Exposure to a Macrocyclic Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent. Radiology. 2017; 283(3): 828–836.
  33. Pozeg P, Forget J, Meuli RA, et al. Age, But Not Repeated Exposure to Gadoterate Meglumine, Is Associated With T1- and T2-Weighted Signal Intensity Changes in the Deep Brain Nuclei of Pediatric Patients. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(9): 537–548.
  34. Agris J, Pietsch H, Balzer T. What Evidence Is There That Gadobutrol Causes Increasing Signal Intensity within the Dentate Nucleus and Globus Pallidus on Unenhanced T1W MRI in Patients with RRMS? Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(3): 816–817.
  35. Bjørnerud A, Vatnehol SA, Larsson C, et al. Signal Enhancement of the Dentate Nucleus at Unenhanced MR Imaging after Very High Cumulative Doses of the Macrocyclic Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent Gadobutrol: An Observational Study. Radiology. 2017; 285(2): 434–444.
  36. Kanda T, Nakai Y, Aoki S, et al. Contribution of metals to brain MR signal intensity: review articles. Jpn J Radiol. 2016; 34(4): 258–266.
  37. Kasahara S, Miki Y, Kanagaki M, et al. Hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with a history of brain irradiation. Radiology. 2011; 258(1): 222–228.
  38. Lohrke J, Frisk AL, Frenzel T, et al. Histology and Gadolinium Distribution in the Rodent Brain After the Administration of Cumulative High Doses of Linear and Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents. Invest Radiol. 2017; 52(6): 324–333.
  39. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Dai D, et al. Comparison of Gadolinium Concentrations within Multiple Rat Organs after Intravenous Administration of Linear versus Macrocyclic Gadolinium Chelates. Radiology. 2017; 285(2): 536–545.
  40. Gianolio E, Bardini P, Arena F, et al. Gadolinium Retention in the Rat Brain: Assessment of the Amounts of Insoluble Gadolinium-containing Species and Intact Gadolinium Complexes after Repeated Administration of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents. Radiology. 2017; 285(3): 839–849.
  41. Minaeva O, Hua N, Franz ES, et al. Nonhomogeneous Gadolinium Retention in the Cerebral Cortex after Intravenous Administration of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent in Rats and Humans. Radiology. 2020; 294(2): 377–385.
  42. Strzeminska I, Factor C, Robert P, et al. Long-Term Evaluation of Gadolinium Retention in Rat Brain After Single Injection of a Clinically Relevant Dose of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(3): 138–143.
  43. Weinmann HJ, Brasch RC, Press WR, et al. Characteristics of gadolinium-DTPA complex: a potential NMR contrast agent. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984; 142(3): 619–624.
  44. Jost G, Frenzel T, Lohrke J, et al. Penetration and distribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents into the cerebrospinal fluid in healthy rats: a potential pathway of entry into the brain tissue. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(7): 2877–2885.
  45. Berger F, Kubik-Huch RA, Niemann T, et al. Gadolinium Distribution in Cerebrospinal Fluid after Administration of a Gadolinium-based MR Contrast Agent in Humans. Radiology. 2018; 288(3): 703–709.
  46. Jost G, Frenzel T, Boyken J, et al. Impact of brain tumors and radiotherapy on the presence of gadolinium in the brain after repeated administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents: an experimental study in rats. Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(11): 1273–1280.
  47. Smith APL, Marino M, Roberts J, et al. Clearance of Gadolinium from the Brain with No Pathologic Effect after Repeated Administration of Gadodiamide in Healthy Rats: An Analytical and Histologic Study. Radiology. 2017; 282(3): 743–751.
  48. Jost G, Frenzel T, Boyken J, et al. Long-term Excretion of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: Linear versus Macrocyclic Agents in an Experimental Rat Model. Radiology. 2019; 290(2): 340–348.
  49. Robert P, Fingerhut S, Factor C, et al. One-year Retention of Gadolinium in the Brain: Comparison of Gadodiamide and Gadoterate Meglumine in a Rodent Model. Radiology. 2018; 288(2): 424–433.
  50. Welk B, McArthur E, Morrow SA, et al. Association Between Gadolinium Contrast Exposure and the Risk of Parkinsonism. JAMA. 2016; 316(1): 96–98.
  51. Perrotta G, Metens T, Absil J, et al. Absence of clinical cerebellar syndrome after serial injections of more than 20 doses of gadoterate, a macrocyclic GBCA: a monocenter retrospective study. J Neurol. 2017; 264(11): 2277–2283.
  52. Zivadinov R, Bergsland N, Hagemeier J, et al. Cumulative gadodiamide administration leads to brain gadolinium deposition in early MS. Neurology. 2019; 93(6): e611–e623.
  53. Cocozza S, Pontillo G, Lanzillo R, et al. MRI features suggestive of gadolinium retention do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening in Multiple Sclerosis. Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(2): 155–162.
  54. Forslin Y, Shams S, Hashim F, et al. Retention of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Multiple Sclerosis: Retrospective Analysis of an 18-Year Longitudinal Study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(7): 1311–1316.
  55. Forslin Y, Martola J, Bergendal Å, et al. Gadolinium Retention in the Brain: An MRI Relaxometry Study of Linear and Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019; 40(8): 1265–1273.
  56. Bower DV, Richter JK, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. Gadolinium-Based MRI Contrast Agents Induce Mitochondrial Toxicity and Cell Death in Human Neurons, and Toxicity Increases With Reduced Kinetic Stability of the Agent. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(8): 453–463.
  57. El Hamrani D, Vives V, Buchholz R, et al. Effect of Long-Term Retention of Gadolinium on Metabolism of Deep Cerebellar Nuclei After Repeated Injections of Gadodiamide in Rats. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(2): 120–128.
  58. Weng TI, Chen HJ, Lu CW, et al. Exposure of Macrophages to Low-Dose Gadolinium-Based Contrast Medium: Impact on Oxidative Stress and Cytokines Production. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018; 2018: 3535769.
  59. Wang S, Hesse B, Roman M, et al. Increased Retention of Gadolinium in the Inflamed Brain After Repeated Administration of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Mice Combining ICP-MS and Micro- and Nano-SR-XRF. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(10): 617–626.
  60. Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, et al. International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2017; 16(7): 564–570.
  61. Falk Delgado A, Van Westen D, Nilsson M, et al. Diagnostic value of alternative techniques to gadolinium-based contrast agents in MR neuroimaging-a comprehensive overview. Insights Imaging. 2019; 10(1): 84.
  62. Haller S, Zaharchuk G, Thomas DL, et al. Arterial Spin Labeling Perfusion of the Brain: Emerging Clinical Applications. Radiology. 2016; 281(2): 337–356.
  63. Detre JA, Alsop DC, Vives LR, et al. Noninvasive MRI evaluation of cerebral blood flow in cerebrovascular disease. Neurology. 1998; 50(3): 633–641.
  64. Blauwblomme T, Naggara O, Brunelle F, et al. Arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging: toward noninvasive diagnosis and follow-up of pediatric brain arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015; 15(4): 451–458.
  65. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology. 1986; 161(2): 401–407.
  66. Kim DY, Kim HS, Goh MJ, et al. Utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for distinguishing recurrent metastatic tumor from treatment effect following gamma knife radiosurgery: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(11): 2082–2090.
  67. Federau C, Meuli R, O'Brien K, et al. Perfusion measurement in brain gliomas with intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(2): 256–262.
  68. Suh CH, Kim HoS, Lee SS, et al. Atypical imaging features of primary central nervous system lymphoma that mimics glioblastoma: utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology. 2014; 272(2): 504–513.
  69. Federau C, Sumer S, Becce F, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion imaging in acute stroke: initial clinical experience. Neuroradiology. 2014; 56(8): 629–635.
  70. Nishimura DG, Macovski A, Pauly JM, et al. MR angiography by selective inversion recovery. Magn Reson Med. 1987; 4(2): 193–202.
  71. Dhundass S, Savatovsky J, Duron L, et al. Improved detection and characterization of arterial occlusion in acute ischemic stroke using contrast enhanced MRA. J Neuroradiol. 2020; 47(4): 278–283.
  72. Kemmling A, Noelte I, Gerigk L, et al. A diagnostic pitfall for intracranial aneurysms in time-of-flight MR angiography: small intracranial lipomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(1): W62–W67.
  73. Saito Y. 8 Current Status of Magnetic Resonance Angiography. vol. ; 7: 2018.
  74. Wymer DT, Patel KP, Burke WF, et al. Phase-Contrast MRI: Physics, Techniques, and Clinical Applications. Radiographics. 2020; 40(1): 122–140.
  75. Christensen S, Amukotuwa S, Lansberg MG, et al. Comparison of Tmax values between full- and half-dose gadolinium perfusion studies. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020 [Epub ahead of print]: 271678X20914537.
  76. Roberts T, Rowley H. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in stroke. European Journal of Radiology. 2003; 45(3): 185–194.
  77. Yamashita K, Hiwatashi A, Togao O, et al. Diagnostic utility of intravoxel incoherent motion mr imaging in differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 44(5): 1256–1261.
  78. Gupta A, Al-Dasuqi K, Xia F, et al. The Use of Noncontrast Quantitative MRI to Detect Gadolinium-Enhancing Multiple Sclerosis Brain Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(7): 1317–1322.
  79. Unal S, Peker E, Erdogan S, et al. Is It Possible to Discriminate Active MS Lesions with Diffusion Weighted Imaging? Eurasian J Med. 2019; 51(3): 219–223.
  80. Arashloo FT, Hanzaei FF, Sedighi B, et al. Efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging in symptomatic and asymptomatic multiple sclerotic plaques. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019; 8(7): 2409–2413.
  81. Wuerfel J, Paul F, Beierbach B, et al. MR-elastography reveals degradation of tissue integrity in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage. 2010; 49(3): 2520–2525.
  82. Riek K, Millward JM, Hamann I, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography reveals altered brain viscoelasticity in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Neuroimage Clin. 2012; 1(1): 81–90.
  83. Bigot M, Chauveau F, Beuf O, et al. Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Rodent Brain. Front Neurol. 2018; 9: 1010.
  84. Burtscher IM, Holtås S. Proton MR spectroscopy in clinical routine. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 13(4): 560–567.
  85. Cianfoni A, Law M, Re TJ, et al. Clinical pitfalls related to short and long echo times in cerebral MR spectroscopy. Journal of Neuroradiology. 2011; 38(2): 69–75.
  86. Liu S, Buch S, Chen Y, et al. Susceptibility-weighted imaging: current status and future directions. NMR in Biomedicine. 2016; 30(4): e3552.
  87. Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, et al. Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med. 2003; 9(8): 1085–1090.
  88. Ward KM, Aletras AH, Balaban RS. A new class of contrast agents for MRI based on proton chemical exchange dependent saturation transfer (CEST). J Magn Reson. 2000; 143(1): 79–87.
  89. Kamimura K, Nakajo M, Yoneyama T, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging of tumors: theory, clinical applications, pitfalls, and future directions. Jpn J Radiol. 2019; 37(2): 109–116.
  90. Gong E, Pauly JM, Wintermark M, et al. Deep learning enables reduced gadolinium dose for contrast-enhanced brain MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018; 48(2): 330–340.
  91. Bendszus M, Roberts D, Kolumban B, et al. Dose Finding Study of Gadopiclenol, a New Macrocyclic Contrast Agent, in MRI of Central Nervous System. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(3): 129–137.
  92. Rodríguez-Galván A, Rivera M, García-López P, et al. Gadolinium-containing carbon nanomaterials for magnetic resonance imaging: Trends and challenges. J Cell Mol Med. 2020; 24(7): 3779–3794.
  93. Erstad DJ, Ramsay IA, Jordan VC, et al. Tumor Contrast Enhancement and Whole-Body Elimination of the Manganese-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agent Mn-PyC3A. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(11): 697–703.
  94. European Medicines Agency. EMA/486286/2012 2012. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/public-statement/public-statement-teslascan-withdrawal-marketing-authorisation-european-union_en.pdf.
  95. Sudarshana DM, Nair G, Dwyer JT, et al. Manganese-Enhanced MRI of the Brain in Healthy Volunteers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019; 40(8): 1309–1316.
  96. Bales BC, Grimmond B, Johnson BF, et al. Fe-HBED Analogs: A Promising Class of Iron-Chelate Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2019; 2019: 8356931.
  97. Dadfar SM, Roemhild K, Drude NI, et al. Iron oxide nanoparticles: Diagnostic, therapeutic and theranostic applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2019; 138: 302–325.
  98. Lee H, Shahrivarkevishahi A, Lumata JL, et al. Supramolecular and biomacromolecular enhancement of metal-free magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Chem Sci. 2020; 11(8): 2045–2050.
  99. EMA’s final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans | European Medicines Agency 2017. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/emas-final-opinion-confirms-restrictions-use-linear-gadolinium-agents-body-scans.
  100. Wu S, Zhang H, Wang J, et al. Iron Sucrose as MRI Contrast Agent in Ischemic Stroke Model. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020; 52(3): 836–849.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl