Gadolinium Contrast Agent Safety and Significance of Recent Data on Brain and Body Deposition
Share |

Authors: Kanae Mukai, MD and Arlene Sirajuddin, MD

Published: 5/31/17

Gadolinium based contrast agents allow your doctor to understand what is affecting your heart at the tissue level and may lead to life-saving diagnoses.

  • It can provide information about your prognosis and survival and will help make diagnoses which will make a difference in how your doctor will treat you
  • Among the diseases it can diagnose include a prior heart attack, fibrosis or scarring of your heart which can give rise to life-threatening rhythm problems and may require a defibrillator, clots, tumor, and problems with the outside layer of your heart (pericardium)
  • Some diseases cannot be found without gadolinium based contrast agents. In some cases, not using the contrast agent will delay diagnosis and potentially life-saving treatment

In the last 29 years, over 100 million patients have received GBCA with an excellent safety profile (incidence of acute reaction ranging from 0.08-0.12%).

Gadolinium based contrast agent in its original form is not toxic.  This because the contrast agents contain “chelates” which are molecules that bind to the elemental gadolinium and allows it to be removed from your body through your kidneys.

There are 2 different types of contrast agents, linear and macrocyclic agents.  They differ based on the type and shape of the chelate molecule binding the gadolinium. 

  • Macrocyclic agents are thought to be more stable as the chelate has a stronger bond with the gadolinium. However, brain deposits have been found with these agents even with a single dose.  More research is needed to understand what this means.
  •  Macrocyclic GBCAs include: gadobutrol (Gadovist, Gadavist), Gadoteridol (ProHance), and Gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem).

Gadobutrol

Gadovist

Gadavist

Macrocyclic/non-ionic

Gadoteridol

ProHance

Macrocyclic/non-ionic

Gadoterate meglumine

Dotarem

Macrocyclic/ionic

 

If you have advanced kidney disease there is a well known risk of developing a very serious disease known as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. This disease has nearly disappeared in the medical field by avoiding the use of gadolinium contrast in patients with poor kidney disease.

We do not know if the gadolinium that was detected in brain and tissue is the toxic form or the safer chelated form.  We need more data to find out how it will affect your safety.

It is important to discuss with your physician regarding your personal risks and benefits of using a gadolinium based contrast agent.  It depends on what he/she is trying to diagnose and the likelihood of that diagnosis.

References:

1.        Absinta, M., M.A. Rocca, and M. Filippi, Dentate nucleus T1 hyperintensity in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2011. 32(6): p. E120-1.

2.        Adin, M.E., L. Kleinberg, D. Vaidya, et al., Hyperintense Dentate Nuclei on T1-Weighted MRI: Relation to Repeat Gadolinium Administration. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2015. 36(10): p. 1859-65.

3.        Caruso, R.D., G.C. Postel, C.S. McDonald, et al., High signal on T1-weighted MR images of the head: a pictorial essay. Clin Imaging, 2001. 25(5): p. 312-9.

4.        Errante, Y., V. Cirimele, C.A. Mallio, 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): p. 685-90.

5.        Ginat, D.T. and S.P. Meyers, Intracranial lesions with high signal intensity on T1-weighted MR images: differential diagnosis. Radiographics, 2012. 32(2): p. 499-516.

6.        Kanda, T., T. Fukusato, M. Matsuda, et al., Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent Accumulates in the Brain Even in Subjects without Severe Renal Dysfunction: Evaluation of Autopsy Brain Specimens with Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy. Radiology, 2015. 276(1): p. 228-32.

7.        Kanda, T., K. Ishii, H. Kawaguchi, 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): p. 834-41.

8.        Kanda, T., M. Matsuda, H. Oba, et al., Gadolinium Deposition after Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology, 2015. 277(3): p. 924-5.

9.        Kasahara, S., Y. Miki, M. Kanagaki, et al., Hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with a history of brain irradiation. Radiology, 2011. 258(1): p. 222-8.

10.     Maschke, M., J. Weber, A. Dimitrova, et al., Age-related changes of the dentate nuclei in normal adults as revealed by 3D fast low angle shot (FLASH) echo sequence magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurol, 2004. 251(6): p. 740-6.

11.     McDonald, R.J., J.S. McDonald, D.F. Kallmes, et al., Intracranial Gadolinium Deposition after Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology, 2015. 275(3): p. 772-82.

12.     Neruda A, P.D., Slavc I, Weber M. I, Is there any relationship between radiotherapy and MRI-signal changes in the basal ganglia and/or dentate nucleus? Neuroradiol J 2010. 23: p. 285-6.

13.     Quattrocchi, C.C., C.A. Mallio, Y. Errante, et al., Gadodiamide and Dentate Nucleus T1 Hyperintensity in Patients With Meningioma Evaluated by Multiple Follow-Up Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Examinations With No Systemic Interval Therapy. Invest Radiol, 2015. 50(7): p. 470-2.

14.     Radbruch, A., L.D. Weberling, P.J. Kieslich, et al., Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology, 2015. 275(3): p. 783-91.

15.     Ramalho, J., M. Castillo, M. AlObaidy, et al., High Signal Intensity in Globus Pallidus and Dentate Nucleus on Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Images: Evaluation of Two Linear Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents. Radiology, 2015. 276(3): p. 836-44.

16.     Robert, P., S. Lehericy, S. Grand, et al., T1-Weighted Hypersignal in the Deep Cerebellar Nuclei After Repeated Administrations of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Healthy Rats: Difference Between Linear and Macrocyclic Agents. Invest Radiol, 2015. 50(8): p. 473-80.

17.     Roccatagliata, L., L. Vuolo, L. Bonzano, et al., Multiple sclerosis: hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with the secondary progressive subtype. Radiology, 2009. 251(2): p. 503-10.

18.     Sanyal, S., P. Marckmann, S. Scherer, et al., Multiorgan gadolinium (Gd) deposition and fibrosis in a patient with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis--an autopsy-based review. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2011. 26(11): p. 3616-26.

19.     Warakaulle, D.R. and P. Anslow, Differential diagnosis of intracranial lesions with high signal on T1 or low signal on T2-weighted MRI. Clin Radiol, 2003. 58(12): p. 922-33.

20.     Semelka, R.C., M. Ramalho, and M. Jay, Summary of special issue on gadolinium bioeffects and toxicity with a look to the future. Magn Reson Imaging, 2016. 34(10): p. 1399-1401.

21.     George, S.J., S.M. Webb, J.L. Abraham, et al., Synchrotron X-ray analyses demonstrate phosphate-bound gadolinium in skin in nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Br J Dermatol, 2010. 163(5): p. 1077-81.

22.     Tedeschi, E., F. Caranci, F. Giordano, et al., Gadolinium retention in the body: what we know and what we can do. Radiol Med, 2017. 23. FDA.  4/17/17]; FDA Orange Book].

24.     Rogosnitzky, M. and S. Branch, Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. Biometals, 2016. 29(3): p. 365-76.

25.     Port, M., J.M. Idee, C. Medina, et al., Efficiency, thermodynamic and kinetic stability of marketed gadolinium chelates and their possible clinical consequences: a critical review. Biometals, 2008. 21(4): p. 469-90.

26.     Frenzel, T., P. Lengsfeld, H. Schirmer, et al., Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol, 2008. 43(12): p. 817-28.

27.     Murata, N., K. Murata, L.F. Gonzalez-Cuyar, et al., Gadolinium tissue deposition in brain and bone. Magn Reson Imaging, 2016. 34(10): p. 1359-1365.

28.     Bruder, O., S. Schneider, G. Pilz, et al., 2015 Update on Acute Adverse Reactions to Gadolinium based Contrast Agents in Cardiovascular MR. Large Multi-National and Multi-Ethnical Population Experience With 37788 Patients From the EuroCMR Registry. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2015. 17: p. 58.

29.     Jung, J.W., H.R. Kang, M.H. Kim, et al., Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology, 2012. 264(2): p. 414-22.

30.     Prince, M.R., H. Zhang, Z. Zou, et al., Incidence of immediate gadolinium contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2011. 196(2): p. W138-43.

31.     Daftari Besheli, L., S. Aran, K. Shaqdan, et al., Current status of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Clin Radiol, 2014. 69(7): p. 661-8.

32.     Zou, Z. and L. Ma, Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: review of 408 biopsy-confirmed cases. Indian J Dermatol, 2011. 56(1): p. 65-73.

33.     Girardi, M., J. Kay, D.M. Elston, et al., Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: clinicopathological definition and workup recommendations. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2011. 65(6): p. 1095-1106 e7.

34.     Murata, N., L.F. Gonzalez-Cuyar, K. Murata, et al., Macrocyclic and Other Non-Group 1 Gadolinium Contrast Agents Deposit Low Levels of Gadolinium in Brain and Bone Tissue: Preliminary Results From 9 Patients With Normal Renal Function. Invest Radiol, 2016. 51(7): p. 447-53.

35.     Martin, D.R., S.K. Krishnamoorthy, B. Kalb, et al., Decreased incidence of NSF in patients on dialysis after changing gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI protocols. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010. 31(2): p. 440-6.

36.     Amet, S., V. Launay-Vacher, O. Clement, et al., Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients undergoing dialysis after contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents: the Prospective Fibrose Nephrogenique Systemique study. Invest Radiol, 2014. 49(2): p. 109-15.

37.     Zelasko, S., M. Hollingshead, M. Castillo, et al., CT and MR imaging of progressive dural involvement by nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2008. 29(10): p. 1880-2.

38.     Birka, M., K.S. Wentker, E. Lusmoller, et al., Diagnosis of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis by means of elemental bioimaging and speciation analysis. Anal Chem, 2015. 87(6): p. 3321-8.

39.     Christensen, K.N., C.U. Lee, M.M. Hanley, et al., Quantification of gadolinium in fresh skin and serum samples from patients with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2011. 64(1): p. 91-6.

40.     Tien, R.D., R.C. Brasch, D.E. Jackson, et al., Cerebral Erdheim-Chester disease: persistent enhancement with Gd-DTPA on MR images. Radiology, 1989. 172(3): p. 791-2.

41.     Kanda, T., M. Osawa, H. Oba, 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): p. 803-9.

42.     Roberts, D.R., S.M. Lindhorst, C.T. Welsh, et al., High Levels of Gadolinium Deposition in the Skin of a Patient With Normal Renal Function. Invest Radiol, 2016. 51(5): p. 280-9.

43.     Miller, J.H., H.H. Hu, A. Pokorney, et al., MRI Brain Signal Intensity Changes of a Child During the Course of 35 Gadolinium Contrast Examinations. Pediatrics, 2015. 136(6): p. e1637-40.

44.     Stojanov, D., A. Aracki-Trenkic, and D. Benedeto-Stojanov, Gadolinium deposition within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents-current status. Neuroradiology, 2016. 58(5): p. 433-41.

45.     Radbruch, A., L.D. Weberling, P.J. Kieslich, et al., High-Signal Intensity in the Dentate Nucleus and Globus Pallidus on Unenhanced T1-Weighted Images: Evaluation of the Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent Gadobutrol. Invest Radiol, 2015. 50(12): p. 805-10.

46.     Radbruch, A.e.a., Communications.  Letters to the Editor.  Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain: Do We Know Enough to Change Practice? In response to: Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 2015;275(3):783–791. Radiology, 2016. 279(1).

47.     Radbruch, A., L.D. Weberling, P.J. Kieslich, et al., Intraindividual Analysis of Signal Intensity Changes in the Dentate Nucleus After Consecutive Serial Applications of Linear and Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents. Invest Radiol, 2016. 51(11): p. 683-690.

48.     Cao, Y., D.Q. Huang, G. Shih, et al., Signal Change in the Dentate Nucleus on T1-Weighted MR Images After Multiple Administrations of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine Versus Gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2016. 206(2): p. 414-9.

49.     Weberling, L.D., P.J. Kieslich, P. Kickingereder, et al., Increased Signal Intensity in the Dentate Nucleus on Unenhanced T1-Weighted Images After Gadobenate Dimeglumine Administration. Invest Radiol, 2015. 50(11): p. 743-8.

50.     Ramalho, J., R.C. Semelka, M. Ramalho, et al., Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent Accumulation and Toxicity: An Update. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2016. 37(7): p. 1192-8.

51.     Kanda, T., H. Oba, K. Toyoda, et al., Brain gadolinium deposition after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Jpn J Radiol, 2016. 34(1): p. 3-9.

Mailing Address
19 Mantua Rd
Mt. Royal, NJ 08061
Contact Us
856.423.8955
hq@scmr.org
Connect With Us