title: A direct comparison of the sensitivity of CT and MR cardiac perfusion using a myocardial perfusion phantom.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Direct comparison of CT and magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion techniques has been limited and in vivo assessment is affected by physiological variability, timing of image acquisition, and parameter selection.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We precisely compared high-resolution k-t SENSE MR cardiac perfusion at 3 T with single-phase CT perfusion (CTP) under identical imaging conditions.
  
  
  METHODS
  We used a customized MR imaging and CT compatible dynamic myocardial perfusion phantom to represent the human circulation. CT perfusion studies were performed with a Philips iCT (256 slice) CT, with isotropic resolution of 0.6 mm(3). MR perfusion was performed with k-t SENSE acceleration at 3 T and spatial resolution of 1.2 × 1.2 × 10 mm. The image contrast between normal and underperfused myocardial compartments was quantified at various perfusion and photon energy settings. Noise estimates were based on published clinical data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Contrast by CTP highly depends on photon energy and also timing of imaging within the myocardial perfusion upslope. For an identical myocardial perfusion deficit, the native image contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) generated by CT and MR are similar. If slice averaging is used, the CNR of a perfusion deficit is expected to be greater for CTP than MR perfusion (MRP). Perfect timing during single time point CTP imaging is difficult to achieve, and CNR by CT decreases by 24%-31% two seconds from the optimal imaging time point. Although single-phase CT perfusion offers higher spatial resolution, MRP allows multiple time point sampling and quantitative analysis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The ability of CTP and current optimal MRP techniques to detect simulated myocardial perfusion deficits is similar.
authors.affiliation: King's College London, Division of Imaging Sciences, The Rayne Institute, Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. jotton@gmail.com
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Otton
authors.forename: Geraint
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Morton
authors.forename: Andreas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Schuster
authors.forename: Boris
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Bigalke
authors.forename: Riccardo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Marano
authors.forename: Luca
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Olivotti
authors.forename: Eike
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Nagel
authors.forename: Amedeo
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Chiribiri
mesh_terms: D017023:Coronary Angiography / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D018810:Magnetic Resonance Angiography / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D055414:Myocardial Perfusion Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*