Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An echo-planar imaging sequence is superior to a steady-state free precession sequence for visual as well as quantitative assessment of cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion
Department of Radiology, Ryhov County Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.
Department of Radiology, Ryhov County Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Physiology, Kalmar County Hospital, Kalmar, Sweden.
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Natural Science and Biomedicine. Department of Oncology, Hospital Physics, Ryhov County Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3951-7715
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, ISSN 1475-0961, E-ISSN 1475-097X, Vol. 37, no 1, 52-61 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: To assess myocardial perfusion, steady-state free precession cardiac magnetic resonance (SSFP, CMR) was compared with gradient-echo–echo-planar imaging (GRE-EPI) using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) as reference.

Methods: Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion was recorded in 30 patients with SSFP and in another 30 patients with GRE-EPI. Timing and extent of inflow delay to the myocardium was visually assessed. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were calculated. Myocardial scar was visualized with a phase-sensitive inversion recovery sequence (PSIR). All scar positive segments were considered pathologic. In MPS, stress and rest images were used as in clinical reporting. The CMR contrast wash-in slope was calculated and compared with the stress score from the MPS examination. CMR scar, CMR perfusion and MPS were assessed separately by one expert for each method who was blinded to other aspects of the study.

Results: Visual assessment of CMR had a sensitivity for the detection of an abnormal MPS at 78% (SSFP) versus 91% (GRE-EPI) and a specificity of 58% (SSFP) versus 84% (GRE-EPI). Kappa statistics for SSFP and MPS was 0·29, for GRE-EPI and MPS 0·72. The ANOVA of CMR perfusion slopes for all segments versus MPS score (four levels based on MPS) had correlation r = 0·64 (SSFP) and r = 0·96 (GRE-EPI). SNR was for normal segments 35·63 ± 11·80 (SSFP) and 17·98 ± 8·31 (GRE-EPI), while CNR was 28·79 ± 10·43 (SSFP) and 13·06 ± 7·61 (GRE-EPI).

Conclusion: GRE-EPI displayed higher agreement with the MPS results than SSFP despite significantly lower signal intensity, SNR and CNR.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2017. Vol. 37, no 1, 52-61 p.
Keyword [en]
cardiac imaging techniques, coronary heart disease, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, nuclear medicine, perfusion
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-34807DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12267ISI: 000390688200008PubMedID: 26147785Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84936803283OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-34807DiVA: diva2:1067098
Available from: 2017-01-20 Created: 2017-01-20 Last updated: 2017-11-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Starck, Sven-Åke

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Starck, Sven-Åke
By organisation
HHJ, Dep. of Natural Science and Biomedicine
In the same journal
Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 66 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf