system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Adenosine, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Contrast Media, Coronary Circulation, Female, Gadolinium DTPA, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Ischemia, Myocardial Perfusion Imaging, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Time Factors, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon, Vasodilator Agents, Visual Perception.
user
Is an echo-planar imaging sequence superior to a steady-state free precession sequence for visual as well as quantitative assessment of cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion? Context: 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. 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. 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).
assistant
GRE-EPI displayed higher agreement with the MPS results than SSFP despite significantly lower signal intensity, SNR and CNR. Final Decision: yes