HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Elkington, A. G. Articles by Pennell, D. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Elkington, A. G. Articles by Pennell, D. J.

Comparison of Hybrid Echo-planar Imaging and FLASH Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular MR Imaging¹

¹ From the Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, England. Received February 26, 2004; revision requested May 5; revision received May 20; accepted June 28. A.G.E. supported by grants from CORDA The Heart Charity. J.C.M. supported by the British Heart Foundation. Address correspondence to D.J.P. (e-mail: d.pennell@imperial.ac.uk).

The purpose of this study was to compare fast single-shot gradient-echo (FLASH) and hybrid echo-planar imaging (EPI) magnetic resonance (MR) technologies regarding the relative contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), spatiotemporal resolution, size of inducible perfusion defects, and presence of artifacts in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Fifteen patients with CAD underwent rest and adenosine stress gadolinium first-pass perfusion cardiovascular MR examinations with EPI and FLASH. The study was approved by the local ethics committee, and each subject gave written informed consent. The spatial resolution of the two sequences was made similar in nine patients, and the temporal resolution was made similar in six. The images were assessed for CNR, artifact, and size of inducible perfusion defects. The CNR was significantly higher with the EPI sequence, whether matched for spatial (32 vs 22 [46%], P < .001) or temporal (35 vs 23 [51%], P < .001) resolution. There was no significant difference in scoring for artifact or area and transmural extent of inducible perfusion defects with EPI and FLASH, whether matched for temporal or spatial resolution. Further work is warranted to determine the relative diagnostic accuracy of the two techniques.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. B. Wolbarst and W. R. Hendee Evolving and Experimental Technologies in Medical Imaging Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 16 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]