Purpose: To clarify the difference and its usefulness of phase-sensitive inversion recovery (IR) in imaging of infarct myocardium by comparing with true FISP IR and turbo Flash IR images. Material and method: We examined 37 consecutive myocardial infarct patients, among cardiac MR requested. According to the injection amount of contrast material, we divided them into 2 groups. 0.1 mM/kg and 0.2 mM/kg of gadolinium-DTPA (Magnevist, Schering) were injected to Group 1 and Group 2 respectively. After the contrast material injection, we select the three segments that include the area of the infarct myocardium and got the images using the turboflash IR sequence, the true FISP IR sequence and the Phase sensitive IR images from all patients. We measure the signal intensities (SI) from the acquired images and calculate the SI radio and differences of the normal - infarct myocardium and the left ventricle – infarct myocardium. And we measure the area of the infarct myocardium and analyze the difference. Result: In case of the SI difference between normal and infarct myocardium, the phase sensitive IR images have 498.8 (group 1) vs 981.1 (group 2) SI differences. Where as the turboflash images have 74.2 (group1) vs 97.7 (group2). The true FISP images have 65.3 (group1) vs 77.7 (group2). But, in case of the SI difference between left ventricle and infarct myocardium, the phase sensitive IR images have 19.4 (group1) vs 19.4 (group2). Where as the turboflash IR images have 49.5 (group1) vs 18.2 (group2) and the true FISP image have 32.4 (group1) vs 7.2 (group2). In case of the area of infarct myocardium, the phase sensitive IR images have statistically tendency to overestimate the infarct area in comparison with the other IR images. Conclusion: Phase sensitive IR using fixed inversion time was able to maximaze the contrast difference between the normal myocardium and infarct myocardium with out determining the optimal inversion time.