PURPOSE: To 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 METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: The 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%). CONCLUSION: SR-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.
PURPOSE: To 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 METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: The 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%). CONCLUSION: SR-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.
Authors: Bernhard D Klumpp; Achim Seeger; Christina Doesch; Joerg Doering; Tobias Hoevelborn; Ulrich Kramer; Michael Fenchel; Meinrad P Gawaz; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Miller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Haonan Wang; Edward V R DiBella; Ganesh Adluru; Daniel J Park; Meredith I Taylor; Neal K Bangerter Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: Behzad Sharif; Rohan Dharmakumar; Reza Arsanjani; Louise Thomson; C Noel Bairey Merz; Daniel S Berman; Debiao Li Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Shivraman Giri; Hui Xue; Andrei Maiseyeu; Randall Kroeker; Sanjay Rajagopalan; Richard D White; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Subha V Raman; Orlando P Simonetti Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 4.668