The Publication Database hosted by SPL
|
All Publications
Upload
Advanced Search
Gallery View
Download Statistics
Help
Import
Log in
Three-dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technique for Myocardial-delayed Hyperenhancement: A Comparison with the Two-dimensional Technique
Institution: |
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. statli&partners.org |
Publisher: |
J Magn Reson Imaging |
Publication Date: |
Sep-2004 |
Volume Number: |
20 |
Issue Number: |
3 |
Pages: |
378-382 |
Citation: |
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Sep;20(3):378-82. |
PubMed ID: |
15332243 |
Appears in Collections: |
SPL |
Generated Citation: |
Tatli S., Zou K.H., Fruitman M., Reynolds H.G., Foo T., Kwong R., Yucel E.K. Three-dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technique for Myocardial-delayed Hyperenhancement: A Comparison with the Two-dimensional Technique. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Sep;20(3):378-82. PMID: 15332243. |
| Downloaded: | 689 times. [view map] |
| Paper: | Download, View online |
| Export citation: |
To compare two-dimensional and three-dimensional techniques in the detection of myocardial infarction (MI) and in the grading transmural extent (TE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with clinically proven MI were examined using two-dimensional and three-dimensional techniques with cardiac-gated, breath-hold, T1-weighted gradient echo sequence with an inversion recovery pulse following gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) at 0.2 mmol/kg. Contrast-to-noise, signal-to-noise, and signal intensity ratios (CNR, SNR, and SIR, respectively) were derived and compared for each technique. RESULTS: From two-dimensional to three-dimensional, statistical significant difference was found in the mean CNR (11.65 vs. 56.59; P = 0.002), SNR (18.03 vs. 76.90; P < 0.001), and SIR (3.6 vs. 6.36; P = 0.05). Intraobserver agreement (kappa) between two-dimensional and three-dimensional were R1 = 74% and R2 = 90%. Interobserver agreements between the readers were two-dimensional = 77% and three-dimensional = 79%. CONCLUSION: Mean CNR, SNR, and SIR are significantly increased in the three-dimensional technique compared to the conventional two-dimensional technique.