Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Hepatol. Aug 8, 2015; 7(16): 1987-2008
Published online Aug 8, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i16.1987
Published online Aug 8, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i16.1987
Table 1 Comparison between extracellular and hepatocyte-specific agents (Multihance® and Eovist®)
| Extracellular contrast agents | Hepatocyte-specific agents | ||
| Multihance® | Eovist® | ||
| Advantages | Robust arterial and portal venous phase imaging | Robust arterial and portal venous phase imaging | Hepatobiliary imaging |
| Price and availability | Hepatobiliary imaging | Short delay for hepatobiliary phase (20 min) | |
| Smaller dose administration | Smaller dose administration | ||
| Safer for renal impaired patients | Safer for renal impaired patients | ||
| Price | |||
| Disadvantages | No hepatobiliary phase | Availability (not available in all countries) | Less robust arterial and portal venous phase imaging |
| NSF cases reported with less stable agents | Longer delay for hepatobiliary phase (90-180 min) | Pitfalls for inexperienced readers | |
| Price | |||
- Citation: Matos AP, Velloni F, Ramalho M, AlObaidy M, Rajapaksha A, Semelka RC. Focal liver lesions: Practical magnetic resonance imaging approach. World J Hepatol 2015; 7(16): 1987-2008
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v7/i16/1987.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v7.i16.1987
