1. Performance of a new natural oral contrast agent (LumiVision®) in dynamic MR swallowing
- Author
-
Michael Weber, Michael A. Arnoldner, Wolfgang Schima, Sebastian F. Schoppmann, Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini, Ivan Kristo, and E. P. Cosentini
- Subjects
Gadolinium DTPA ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Gastrointestinal ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Contrast Media ,Nissen fundoplication ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Esophagus ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,Swallowing ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Retrospective Studies ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Reflux ,General Medicine ,medicine.disease ,Deglutition ,Contrast medium ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,GERD ,Fundoplication, contrast agent ,Radiology ,Bolus (digestion) ,business - Abstract
Objectives To evaluate image quality by first use of LumiVision® in dynamic MR swallowing, a contrast medium consisting of biological substances versus a gadolinium-buttermilk mixture in patients who underwent Nissen fundoplication due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods The protocol of this retrospective study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. A hundred twenty-nine patients (146 examinations) underwent a dynamic MR swallowing study (at 1.5 T or 3.0 T) and received an oral contrast agent. Two readers evaluated the distention of the esophagus, contrast, and traceability of the bolus in a 3-point scale. A steady-state coherent sequence (B-FFE, TrueFISP) was used. The patients were divided into 3 different groups: 53 patients received gadolinium chelate (Dotarem®)–buttermilk mixture (GBM) in a dilution of 1:40 as an oral contrast agent; 44 patients received LumiVision® water mixture (LWM) in a dilution of 1:1 and 49 patients received LumiVision® (L) undiluted. Results GBM showed significantly better results in overall evaluation for both readers in contrast to LWM (p = .003, p = .002). L also reached significantly better results in overall evaluation than LWM in both readers (p = .004, p = .042). There was no significant difference in the overall evaluation between L and GBM (p = .914, p = .376).According to Landis and Koch, interobserver agreement was “substantial” (Cohen’s kappa = 0.738) between both readers. Conclusion LumiVision® undiluted showed equal image quality compared to gadolinium-buttermilk mixture. The constellation of LumiVision® water mixture led to a clearly negative result in relation to the image quality compared to LumiVision® undiluted. Therefore, oral ingestion of LumiVision® undiluted is recommended for MR swallowing examinations. Key Points • LumiVision® undiluted shows significantly better image quality in comparison to LumiVision® diluted in oral application in swallowing MRI. • LumiVision® undiluted shows equal image quality in comparison to gadolinium-buttermilk mixture in oral application. • Oral ingestion of LumiVision® undiluted can replace gadolinium-buttermilk mixture in oral MR examinations.
- Published
- 2021