Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative perfusion measures over 10 rest perfusion scans in patients with no myocardial infarction, surface coil corrected either with FLASH or SSFP PD frames

From: FLASH proton density imaging for improved surface coil intensity correction in quantitative and semi-quantitative SSFP perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance

  Inter-subject MEAN Intra-subject CoV or SD p
FLASH PD SSFP PD FLASH PD SSFP PD  
APPARENT ARTEFACTS in LV ROI in SSFP PD images (6/10) MBF (ml/min/g) 0.98 ± 0.18 0.87 ± 0.13 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 0.03
Peak enhancement (A.U.) 134 ± 67 140 ± 65 10 ± 2 32 ± 7 0.01
Upslope (A.U.) 0.25 ± 0.09 0.25 ± 0.11 0.02 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.02 0.03
NO APPARENT ARTEFACTS in LV ROI in SSFP PD images (4/10) MBF (ml/min/g) 1.06 ± 0.25 1.05 ± 0.27 0.25 ± 0.13 0.25 ± 0.14 0.5
Peak enhancement (A.U.) 139 ± 75 140 ± 70 8 ± 3 7 ± 2 0.25
Upslope (A.U.) 0.35 ± 0.12 0.35 ± 0.11 0.04 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.02 0.55
  1. Results are presented for two groups: scans where artifacts were apparent in the left ventricular (LV) region-of-interest (ROI) of the SSFP PD images (6 out of 10), and scans where no apparent artifacts were present in the LV ROI of the SSFP images. Inter-subject mean myocardial blood flow (MBF), peak myocardial contrast enhancement (CE) and time intensity upslope (SLP) are presented. For method comparison, intra-subject MBF coefficient of variation (CoV) over the entire LV, as well as intra-subject CE and SLP standard deviation (SD) over 6 LV sectors, are presented together with the results of the paired t-test comparison. In the data pool where artifacts were apparent in the SSFP PD images, all variability parameters for all three measures were statistically significantly smaller for the data surface coil intensity corrected with FLASH PD images. In the data pool where artifacts were not apparent in the SSFP PD images, all measures were in close agreement.