. 2018 Nov 2;225(3):e13199. doi: 10.1111/apha.13199

Table 2.

Comparison of Dotarem (MW 0.56 kDa) and Gadomer‐17 (MW 17 kDa and apparent MW 30‐35 kDa) in six wt mice where Dotarem was injected first and Gadomer‐17 was injected 1 day later. Johnson‐Wilson deconvolution method was used for calculation in these experiments. Intravascular transit times (T _c) from the Dotarem were used in the Gadomer‐17 experiments in order for the model to converge and provide a solution. The confidence in the reported values of blood flow and volume for Dotarem and Extraction reaction for Gadomer‐17 are evaluated in Discussion

	Dotarem	Gadomer‐17
Primary derived parameters
Blood flow (F _b), mL 100 mL⁻¹ min⁻¹	7.47 ± 1.84	16.60 ± 7.80*
Intravascular transit time (T _c), seconds	11.7 ± 3.00	11.7 ± 3.00^{cf legend}
Extraction fraction	0.657 ± 0.043	0.074 ± 0.027***
Efflux rate from V _e, to V _b (k _ep), min⁻¹	0.613 ± 0.109	0.225 ± 0.078***
Plasma t_1/2, seconds	20 ± 4	637 ± 507*
Secondary derived parameters
Blood volume (V _b), mL 100 mL⁻¹	1.39 ± 0.26	2.94 ± 0.81**
PS, mL 100 mL⁻¹ min⁻¹	5.67 ± 0.90	0.83 ± 0.28***
Extravascular volume (V _e), mL 100 mL⁻¹	7.98 ± 1.30	4.96 ± 0.95**
Transfer constant V _b to V _e (k _trans), min⁻¹	3.49 ± 0.68	0.79 ± 0.27***

Mean ± SD. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 for Dotarem vs Gadomer‐17.