4.5 Article

High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Angiography in the Mouse Using a Nanoparticle Blood-Pool Contrast Agent

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 62, Issue 6, Pages 1447-1456

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22154

Keywords

MR anglography (MRA); blood-pool contrast agent; liposomes; neurovascular axis; mouse

Funding

  1. NIH/NCRR National Biomedical Technology Research Center [P41 RR005959, U24 CA092656]
  2. American Society of Neuroradiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High-resolution magnetic resonance angiography is already a useful tool for studying mouse models of human disease. Magnetic resonance angiography in the mouse is typically performed using time-of-flight contrast. In this work, a new long-circulating blood-pool contrast agent-a liposomal nanoparticle with surface-conjugated gadolinium (SC-Gd liposomes)was evaluated for use in mouse neurovascular magnetic resonance angiography. A total of 12 mice were imaged. Scan parameters were optimized for both time-of-flight and SC-Gd contrast. Compared to time-of-flight contrast, SC-Gd liposomes (0.08 mmol/kg) enabled improved small-vessel contrast-to-noise ratio, larger field of view, shorter scan time, and imaging of venous structures. For a limited field of view, time-of-flight and SC-Gd were not significantly different; however, SC-Gd provided better contrast-to-noise ratio when the field of view encompassed the whole brain (P < 0.001) or the whole neurovascular axis (P < 0.001). SC-Gd allowed acquisition of high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography (52 x 52 x 100 micrometer(3) or 0.27 nL), with 123% higher (P < 0.001) contrast-to-noise ratio in comparable scan time (similar to 45 min). Alternatively, SC-Gd liposomes could be used to acquire high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography (0.27 nL) with 32% higher contrast-to-noise ratio (P < 0.001) in 75% shorter scan time (12 min). Magn Reson Med 62:1447-1456, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available