Fig. 3
Comparison of 3 slice bSSFP, SMS-TGRAPPA and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) in 8 patients. a Overall diagnostic image quality. Scores for image quality range from 0 to 3 (0 = poor image quality and non-diagnostic, 1 = major artifact present but not limiting diagnosis, 2 = minor artifact present but not limiting diagnosis, 3 = excellent). Overall image quality was significantly higher with SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) compared to SMS-TGRAPPA and 3 slice bSSFP. b Perceived Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) with 3 slice bSSFP, SMS-TGRAPPA and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005). Scores for perceived signal-to-noise (SNR) from 0 to 3 (0 = very poor SNR non-diagnostic image quality, 1 = major noise present but not limiting diagnosis, 2 = minor noise present but not limiting diagnosis, 3 = high SNR with excellent image quality). Perceived SNR was significantly higher with SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) compared to SMS-TGRAPPA and 3 slice bSSFP. c Contrast ratio (CR; ratio peak blood pool signal intensity: peak myocardial signal intensity). There was no significant difference in the contrast ratio between SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005) and 3 slice bSSFP. d Dark rim artifact (mean and standard deviation): There was no significant difference in the percentage of dark rim artifact between 3 slice bSSFP and SMS-TGRAPPA or SMS-TGRAPPA and SMS-iter 6 (λσ 0.001 λτ 0.005)