Multislice first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging: Comparison of saturation recovery (SR)-TrueFISP-two-dimensional (2D) and SR-TurboFLASH-2D pulse sequences

Purpose To compare signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), contrast‐to‐noise (CNR) ratio, and diagnostic accuracy of a newly developed saturation recovery (SR)‐TrueFISP‐two‐dimensional (2D) sequence with an SR‐TurboFLASH‐2D sequence. Materials and Methods In seven healthy subjects and nine patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), contrast‐enhanced perfusion imaging (with Gd‐DTPA) was performed with SR‐TrueFISP and SR‐TurboFLASH sequences. Hypoperfused areas were assessed qualitatively (scale = 0–4). Furthermore, SNR and CNR were calculated and semiquantitative perfusion parameters were determined from signal intensity (SI) time curves. Standard of reference for patient studies was single‐photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) and angiography. Results The perception of perfusion deficits was superior in TrueFISP images (2.6 ± 1.0) than in TurboFLASH (1.4 ± 0.6) (P < 0.001). Phantom measurements yielded increased SNR (143 ± 34%) and CNR (158 ± 64%) values for TrueFISP. In patient/volunteer studies SNR was 61% to 100% higher and signal enhancement was 110% to 115% higher with TrueFISP than with TurboFLASH. Qualitative and semiquantitative assessment of perfusion defects yielded higher sensitivities for detection of perfusion defects with TrueFISP (68% to 78%) than with TurboFLASH (44% to 59%). Conclusion SR‐TrueFISP‐2D perfusion imaging provides superior SNR and CNR than TurboFLASH imaging. Moreover, the dynamic range of SIs was found to be higher with TrueFISP, resulting in an increased sensitivity for detection of perfusion defects. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2004;19:555–563. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.