• Jonathan C Lyne, Peter D Gatehouse, Ravi G Assomull, Gillian C Smith, Peter Kellman, David N Firmin, and Dudley J Pennell.
• Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
• J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Dec 1; 26 (6): 1444-51.

PurposeTo directly compare the three main myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequences incorporating parallel acquisition methods.Materials And MethodsIn 15 subjects (12 men, 57 +/- 15.7 years) referred for diagnostic coronary angiography, we acquired first-pass perfusion images (0.1 mmol/kg gadolinium-DTPA) at rest and during adenosine (140 microg/kg/min) on three separate occasions using three sequences incorporating parallel acquisition methods and approximately equivalent spatiotemporal resolution: hybrid echo planar imaging (hEPI), steady-state free precession (SSFP), and gradient echo imaging (GRE). We calculated the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of each scan and blinded observers scored the presence and severity of artifacts (1, worst to 4, best), diagnostic confidence (0, low to 2, high), transmurality, area, and epicardial vessel territory of perfusion defects.ResultsCNR was greatest with SSFP and least with hEPI (13.15 vs 7.85 P < 0.001). The most artifacts were recorded with SSFP and least with hEPI (2.00 vs 3.03 P < 0.001). Observers were significantly more confident in reporting hEPI images (1.6 hEPI vs 0.9 SSFP, P < 0.001). Results for GRE were intermediate for all assessments.ConclusionThe hEPI sequence scored best for diagnostic performance despite the SSFP sequence having greater CNR. This trial favors hEPI for clinical myocardial perfusion CMR and suggests CNR should not be the sole criterion used to gauge the best candidate sequence.(c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

14 keywords...

hide…