Skip to main content


  • Workshop presentation
  • Open Access

3 Tesla is the preferred field strength for perfusion imaging in coronary artery disease – a comparison to 1.5 Tesla and fractional flow reserve

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201315 (Suppl 1) :W4

  • Published:


  • Coronary Angiography
  • Perfusion Imaging
  • Fractional Flow Reserve
  • Philips Medical System
  • Suspected Coronary Artery Disease


Adenosine perfusion imaging at 1.5 Tesla (T) has been shown to yield good diagnostic values in comparison to quantitative coronary angiography. Perfusion imaging at 3 T has the potential benefit of higher contrast- and signal-to-noise ratios. However, little is known about diagnostic performance of 3 T perfusion imaging in comparison to 1.5 T and in comparison to invasive measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). We sought to evaluate visual and quantitative assessment of adenosine perfusion at 3 T in comparison to 1.5 T and to coronary angiography in patients presenting with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).


86 consecutive patients with suspected CAD were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent adenosine perfusion at 3 T (Achieva, Philips Medical Systems) and 1.5 T (Intera, Philips Medical Systems) within 72 hours with subsequent coronary angiography within 72 hours. Two independent patient groups were formed. In group 1 1 (N=52) quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) was compared to qualitative perfusion MRI imaging. Group 2 (N=34) underwent FFR measurement in all three major coronary arteries in comparison to quantitative myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR).


In both groups a significant (p<0.05) higher sensitivity and specificity (group 1: 0.88 vs 0.80 and 0.96 vs. 0.89, p<0.01; group 2 0.91 vs. 0.62 and 1.0 vs. 0.77, p<0.001) was found for 3 T when compared to 1.5 T.


3 T appears to be the superior field strength for visual or quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion in CAD as shown in our two consecutive patient groups.

Authors’ Affiliations

University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany


© Bernhardt et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.