Literature DB >> 17968886

Direct comparison of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance sequences with parallel acquisition.

Jonathan C Lyne1, Peter D Gatehouse, Ravi G Assomull, Gillian C Smith, Peter Kellman, David N Firmin, Dudley J Pennell.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To directly compare the three main myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequences incorporating parallel acquisition methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 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.
RESULTS: CNR 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.
CONCLUSION: The 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17968886     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  12 in total

1.  Cardiac magnetic resonance derived late microvascular obstruction assessment post ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is the best predictor of left ventricular function: a comparison of angiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance derived measurements.

Authors:  Dennis T L Wong; Michael C H Leung; James D Richardson; Rishi Puri; Angela G Bertaso; Kerry Williams; Ian T Meredith; Karen S L Teo; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-02-05       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Comparison of an advanced, high-resolution and a standard sequence.

Authors:  Geraint Morton; Masaki Ishida; Andreas Schuster; Shazia Hussain; Tobias Schaeffter; Amedeo Chiribiri; Eike Nagel
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-06-09       Impact factor: 5.364

3.  Steady-state first-pass perfusion (SSFPP): a new approach to 3D first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging.

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

Review 4.  Evaluation of the microcirculation: advances in cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Amit R Patel; Frederick H Epstein; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Non-rigid registration and KLT filter to improve SNR and CNR in GRE-EPI myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Georgeta Mihai; Yu Ding; Hui Xue; Yiu-Cho Chung; Sanjay Rajagopalan; Jens Guehring; Orlando P Simonetti
Journal:  J Biomed Sci Eng       Date:  2012-12

6.  Imaging the physiology of the ischemic cascade: are 2 tools better than 1?

Authors:  Raymond Y Kwong
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 7.792

7.  Myocardial first-pass perfusion imaging with hybrid-EPI: frequency-offsets and potential artefacts.

Authors:  Pedro F Ferreira; Peter D Gatehouse; David N Firmin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 8.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 3.0 T: current state of the art.

Authors:  John N Oshinski; Jana G Delfino; Puneet Sharma; Ahmed M Gharib; Roderic I Pettigrew
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 5.364

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance following acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction post primary angioplasty.

Authors:  Dennis T L Wong; Michael C H Leung; Rajiv Das; Gary Y H Liew; Kerry Williams; Benjamin K Dundon; Payman Molaee; Karen S L Teo; Ian T Meredith; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2011-10-22       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance physics for clinicians: Part II.

Authors:  John D Biglands; Aleksandra Radjenovic; John P Ridgway
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 5.364

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.