• Michael Fenchel, Uwe Helber, Orlando P Simonetti, Norbert I Stauder, Ulrich Kramer, Co-Nghi Nguyen, J Paul Finn, Claus D Claussen, and Stephan Miller.
• Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Tuebingen, Germany. michael.fenchl@med.uni-tuebingen.de
• J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 May 1; 19 (5): 555-63.

PurposeTo compare signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratio, and diagnostic accuracy of a newly developed saturation recovery (SR)-TrueFISP-two-dimensional (2D) sequence with an SR-TurboFLASH-2D sequence.Materials And MethodsIn seven healthy subjects and nine patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), contrast-enhanced perfusion imaging (with Gd-DTPA) was performed with SR-TrueFISP and SR-TurboFLASH sequences. Hypoperfused areas were assessed qualitatively (scale = 0-4). Furthermore, SNR and CNR were calculated and semiquantitative perfusion parameters were determined from signal intensity (SI) time curves. Standard of reference for patient studies was single-photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) and angiography.ResultsThe perception of perfusion deficits was superior in TrueFISP images (2.6 +/- 1.0) than in TurboFLASH (1.4 +/- 0.6) (P < 0.001). Phantom measurements yielded increased SNR (143 +/- 34%) and CNR (158 +/- 64%) values for TrueFISP. In patient/volunteer studies SNR was 61% to 100% higher and signal enhancement was 110% to 115% higher with TrueFISP than with TurboFLASH. Qualitative and semiquantitative assessment of perfusion defects yielded higher sensitivities for detection of perfusion defects with TrueFISP (68% to 78%) than with TurboFLASH (44% to 59%).ConclusionSR-TrueFISP-2D perfusion imaging provides superior SNR and CNR than TurboFLASH imaging. Moreover, the dynamic range of SIs was found to be higher with TrueFISP, resulting in an increased sensitivity for detection of perfusion defects.Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

16 keywords...

hide…