• Servet Tatli, Kelly H Zou, Mark Fruitman, H Glenn Reynolds, Thomas Foo, Raymond Kwong, and E Kent Yucel.
• Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. statli@partners.org
• J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Sep 1; 20 (3): 378-82.

PurposeTo compare two-dimensional and three-dimensional techniques in the detection of myocardial infarction (MI) and in the grading transmural extent (TE).Materials And MethodsTwelve patients with clinically proven MI were examined using two-dimensional and three-dimensional techniques with cardiac-gated, breath-hold, T1-weighted gradient echo sequence with an inversion recovery pulse following gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) at 0.2 mmol/kg. Contrast-to-noise, signal-to-noise, and signal intensity ratios (CNR, SNR, and SIR, respectively) were derived and compared for each technique.ResultsFrom two-dimensional to three-dimensional, statistical significant difference was found in the mean CNR (11.65 vs. 56.59; P = 0.002), SNR (18.03 vs. 76.90; P < 0.001), and SIR (3.6 vs. 6.36; P = 0.05). Intraobserver agreement (kappa) between two-dimensional and three-dimensional were R1 = 74% and R2 = 90%. Interobserver agreements between the readers were two-dimensional = 77% and three-dimensional = 79%.ConclusionMean CNR, SNR, and SIR are significantly increased in the three-dimensional technique compared to the conventional two-dimensional technique.Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

18 keywords...

hide…