Comment Clarifications (Score 2) 115
1) Absorption of the xray beam is not just based on a material's electron density. The contrast media we use today have a k-shell energy in the mid 30 kev which causes a sharp increase in the amount of absorption due to the photoelectric effect proportional to compton scatter. This means they have a higher absorption at these energies than their atomic number would indicate. Gallium's atomic number is lower than iodine's and its k edge is at 10 kev rather than in the 30s. I find it hard to believe that it provides better contrast resolution AT SIMILAR DOSES than iodine based contrast media. The actual paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.6717.pdf) does not discuss the dose of gallium administered but based on the images I would assume they completely filled the coronary vasculature with gallium. This would not be compatible with life.
2) We have administered gallium 67 salts intravenously for medical imaging for decades, although it is out favor these days due to relative inferiority to newer imaging agents such as FDG-F18. Since the isotope is emitting photons out of the patient rather than us shooting photons into the patient and depending on gallium to absorb them, the doses are much lower for the type of imaging currently used than they would have to be for the proposed use as a contrast agent. As described above, completely replacing the blood with gallium to perform conventional or CT angiography would not be compatible with life.
Source: Radiology Society of North America physics modules http://www.rsna.org/RSNA/AAPM_Online_Physics_Modules_.aspx (massive paywall)