What is it about?
A direct comparison of 3D perfusion CMR (i.e. whole heart coverage), with the standard 2D technique which only covers 3 slices
Featured Image
Why is it important?
A common criticism of the standard 2D perfusion CMR technique is the lack of whole-heart coverage. This is now possible using newer 3D techniques, but a direct comparison has not been previously performed.
Perspectives
3D perfusion CMR with whole heart coverage is feasible, accurate and well-suited to defining true myocardial ischemic burden. Estimates of myocardial ischemic burden correlate well between 2D and 3D techniques but with wide limits of agreement - and therefore caution is required when comparing these values directly. Prognostic cut-offs for both techniques need to be determined separately.
Dr Manish Motwani
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Three-dimensional whole-heart vs. two-dimensional high-resolution perfusion-CMR: a pilot study comparing myocardial ischaemic burden, European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, October 2015, European Society of Cardiology,
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jev231.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
