OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging the myocardium with a fast multislice inversion recovery 2D single-shot true fast imaging with steady-state precession (trueFISP) sequence during a single breath-hold in comparison with an established segmented inversion recovery turbo fast low-angle shot (turboFLASH) sequence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with myocardial infarction were examined on a 1.5-T MR system 10 min after administration of contrast material (gadodiamide, 0.2 mmol/kg) with a single-shot 2D multislice technique (single-shot inversion recovery trueFISP) that allows one to image the entire short axis during one breath-hold (18 heartbeats) and with a segmented 2D single-slice technique (inversion recovery turboFLASH) that requires one breath-hold per slice (12 heartbeats). Signal intensity was determined in normal myocardium, in infarcted myocardium, and in the left ventricle. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of normal and infarcted myocardium was determined. The areas of hyperintense infarctions on selected slices and the entire volumes were compared for both sequence techniques. RESULTS: The inversion recovery trueFISP sequence has a lower CNR than the inversion recovery turboFLASH sequence (mean values, 10.0 vs 12.9, respectively; p = 0.005) for differentiation of viable from nonviable myocardium. The CNR of injured myocardium and blood in the left ventricular cavity also has a lower value for the multislice technique compared with the single-slice technique (0.6 vs 1.2, respectively; p = 0.045). Assessment of the area of infarction within one slice (r = 0.97, p < 0.002) and of the volume of the entire infarction (r = 0.96, p < 0.003) is possible with excellent correlation of both techniques. CONCLUSION: Despite having a lower CNR, the inversion recovery 2D single-shot trueFISP sequence allows fast and accurate identification of the area and volume of infarction with high spatial resolution within a single breath-hold.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging the myocardium with a fast multislice inversion recovery 2D single-shot true fast imaging with steady-state precession (trueFISP) sequence during a single breath-hold in comparison with an established segmented inversion recovery turbo fast low-angle shot (turboFLASH) sequence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with myocardial infarction were examined on a 1.5-T MR system 10 min after administration of contrast material (gadodiamide, 0.2 mmol/kg) with a single-shot 2D multislice technique (single-shot inversion recovery trueFISP) that allows one to image the entire short axis during one breath-hold (18 heartbeats) and with a segmented 2D single-slice technique (inversion recovery turboFLASH) that requires one breath-hold per slice (12 heartbeats). Signal intensity was determined in normal myocardium, in infarcted myocardium, and in the left ventricle. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of normal and infarcted myocardium was determined. The areas of hyperintense infarctions on selected slices and the entire volumes were compared for both sequence techniques. RESULTS: The inversion recovery trueFISP sequence has a lower CNR than the inversion recovery turboFLASH sequence (mean values, 10.0 vs 12.9, respectively; p = 0.005) for differentiation of viable from nonviable myocardium. The CNR of injured myocardium and blood in the left ventricular cavity also has a lower value for the multislice technique compared with the single-slice technique (0.6 vs 1.2, respectively; p = 0.045). Assessment of the area of infarction within one slice (r = 0.97, p < 0.002) and of the volume of the entire infarction (r = 0.96, p < 0.003) is possible with excellent correlation of both techniques. CONCLUSION: Despite having a lower CNR, the inversion recovery 2D single-shot trueFISP sequence allows fast and accurate identification of the area and volume of infarction with high spatial resolution within a single breath-hold.
Authors: Amir Ali Rahsepar; Ahmadreza Ghasemiesfe; Kenichiro Suwa; Ryan S Dolan; Monda L Shehata; Monica J Korell; Nivedita K Naresh; Michael Markl; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K U Bauner; A Biffar; M Greif; A Becker; M Picciolo; D Theisen; T A Sandner; M Notohamiprodjo; M F Reiser; B J Wintersperger Journal: Radiologe Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: James A White; Han W Kim; Dipan Shah; Nowell Fine; Ki-Young Kim; David C Wendell; Wael Al-Jaroudi; Michele Parker; Manesh Patel; Femida Gwadry-Sridhar; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-08
Authors: Peter Kellman; Anthony H Aletras; Christine Mancini; Elliot R McVeigh; Andrew E Arai Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.668