• Britt-Marie Ahlander, Eva Maret, Lars Brudin, Sven-Ake Starck, and Jan Engvall.
• Department of Radiology, Ryhov County Hospital, Jonkoping, Sweden.
• Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017 Jan 1; 37 (1): 52-61.

BackgroundTo assess myocardial perfusion, steady-state free precession cardiac magnetic resonance (SSFP, CMR) was compared with gradient-echo-echo-planar imaging (GRE-EPI) using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) as reference.MethodsCardiac magnetic resonance perfusion was recorded in 30 patients with SSFP and in another 30 patients with GRE-EPI. Timing and extent of inflow delay to the myocardium was visually assessed. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were calculated. Myocardial scar was visualized with a phase-sensitive inversion recovery sequence (PSIR). All scar positive segments were considered pathologic. In MPS, stress and rest images were used as in clinical reporting. The CMR contrast wash-in slope was calculated and compared with the stress score from the MPS examination. CMR scar, CMR perfusion and MPS were assessed separately by one expert for each method who was blinded to other aspects of the study.ResultsVisual assessment of CMR had a sensitivity for the detection of an abnormal MPS at 78% (SSFP) versus 91% (GRE-EPI) and a specificity of 58% (SSFP) versus 84% (GRE-EPI). Kappa statistics for SSFP and MPS was 0·29, for GRE-EPI and MPS 0·72. The ANOVA of CMR perfusion slopes for all segments versus MPS score (four levels based on MPS) had correlation r = 0·64 (SSFP) and r = 0·96 (GRE-EPI). SNR was for normal segments 35·63 ± 11·80 (SSFP) and 17·98 ± 8·31 (GRE-EPI), while CNR was 28·79 ± 10·43 (SSFP) and 13·06 ± 7·61 (GRE-EPI).ConclusionGRE-EPI displayed higher agreement with the MPS results than SSFP despite significantly lower signal intensity, SNR and CNR.© 2015 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

34 keywords...

hide…