Skip to main content
Fig. 4 | Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Fig. 4

From: Fully quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion ready for clinical use: a comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

Fig. 4

A patient with multi-vessel disease. a CMR MP maps at rest and stress, b first-pass perfusion images at rest and stress, c PET polar plot MP maps from dynamic 13 N–NH3 PET acquisition at rest and stress and d non-dynamic 13 N–NH3 PET images at rest and stress. Note the absence of any regional perfusion defect in any of (a-d). For the quantitative assessment of MP (a, c), the patient had signs of a global decrease in myocardial perfusion reserve with only a slight increase of MP during stress as assessed both with PET and CMR. However, for the qualitative assessment of relative perfusion distribution (b, d), the patient was evaluated as having normal distribution and no stress-induced ischemia. The angiography for this patient showed signs of stenosis in all three main coronary arteries. CMR = cardiovascular magnetic resonance, MP = myocardial perfusion, PET = positron emission tomography

Back to article page