OBJECTIVE: Stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MSPMRI) is an established technique for the assessment of myocardial perfusion. Shortcomings at 1.5 T are low signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR). One approach to overcome these shortcomings is to increase field strength and contrast concentration. The aim of our study was to investigate the diagnostic capability of high resolution MSPMRI at 3-T field strength using a 1 M contrast agent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (62.3 +/- 11.0 years) with symptoms of coronary artery disease (CAD) were examined at 3 T. MMRSPI was assessed using a 2D saturation recovery gradient echo (SR GRE) sequence in short axis orientation (TR 1.9 ms, TE 1.0 ms, flip 12 degrees , 0.1 mmol gadobutrol/kg body weight (bw), 140 microg adenosine/kg bw/min). Perfusion images were assessed visually and semiquantitatively (upslope, peak signal intensity (SI), and myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI)). Standard of reference was invasive coronary angiography. RESULTS: Stress-induced hypoperfusion was found in 43 patients. Sensitivity for hemodynamically relevant CAD (stenoses greater than 70%) was 95%/98%, specificity 80%/87%, diagnostic accuracy 91%/95% (reader 1/reader 2). The MPRI was significantly lower in hypoperfused myocardium (1.3 +/- 0.2) compared with normal myocardium (2.6 +/- 0.7). CONCLUSION: High resolution MMRSPI at 3 T using 1 M contrast agent under daily routine conditions provides reliable detection of stress-induced myocardial hypoperfusion with higher diagnostic accuracy than 1.5-T conditions.
OBJECTIVE: Stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MSPMRI) is an established technique for the assessment of myocardial perfusion. Shortcomings at 1.5 T are low signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR). One approach to overcome these shortcomings is to increase field strength and contrast concentration. The aim of our study was to investigate the diagnostic capability of high resolution MSPMRI at 3-T field strength using a 1 M contrast agent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (62.3 +/- 11.0 years) with symptoms of coronary artery disease (CAD) were examined at 3 T. MMRSPI was assessed using a 2D saturation recovery gradient echo (SR GRE) sequence in short axis orientation (TR 1.9 ms, TE 1.0 ms, flip 12 degrees , 0.1 mmol gadobutrol/kg body weight (bw), 140 microg adenosine/kg bw/min). Perfusion images were assessed visually and semiquantitatively (upslope, peak signal intensity (SI), and myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI)). Standard of reference was invasive coronary angiography. RESULTS: Stress-induced hypoperfusion was found in 43 patients. Sensitivity for hemodynamically relevant CAD (stenoses greater than 70%) was 95%/98%, specificity 80%/87%, diagnostic accuracy 91%/95% (reader 1/reader 2). The MPRI was significantly lower in hypoperfused myocardium (1.3 +/- 0.2) compared with normal myocardium (2.6 +/- 0.7). CONCLUSION: High resolution MMRSPI at 3 T using 1 M contrast agent under daily routine conditions provides reliable detection of stress-induced myocardial hypoperfusion with higher diagnostic accuracy than 1.5-T conditions.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Achim A Barmeyer; Alexander Stork; Kai Muellerleile; Claudia Tiburtius; Anne K Schofer; Thomas A Heitzer; Thomas Hofmann; Gerhard Adam; Thomas Meinertz; Gunnar K Lund Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel Theisen; Bernd J Wintersperger; Armin Huber; Olaf Dietrich; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schönberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: J T Keijer; A C van Rossum; M J van Eenige; J J Bax; F C Visser; J J Teule; C A Visser Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jens Vogel-Claussen; Jan Skrok; Monda L Shehata; Sukhminder Singh; Christopher T Sibley; Danielle M Boyce; Noah Lechtzin; Reda E Girgis; Steven C Mathai; Thomas A Goldstein; Jie Zheng; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke; Paul M Hassoun Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patrick Krumm; Stefanie Mangold; Sergios Gatidis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Felix Nensa; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Marcus C de Jong; Tessa S S Genders; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Adriaan Moelker; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315