English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Pixel-wise quantitative analysis of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion images allows myocardial blood flow (MBF) to be measured at the level of approximately 30 μL of myocardium. However B1-field inhomogeneity, induced by phased array surface receiver coils, potentially confounds MBF measurements. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of: 1. no surface coil intensity correction (No-SCIC); 2. SCIC performed using saturation recovery steady-state free precession images (SSFP-SCIC); and 3. SCIC performed using proton density-weighted images (PD-SCIC); on pixel-wise measurements of MBF in patients with confirmed significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and healthy volunteers. Methods 26 subjects, comprising 18 patients (11 male; age 58 ± 12 years) with significant CAD (> 70% stenosis on invasive coronary angiography) in 1 (56%) or 2 (44%) major epicardial arteries (78% LAD, 50% RCA, 17% Cx) and 8 healthy volunteers (7 male; age 24 ± 10 years), were included. Perfusion imaging was performed using a motion-corrected saturation recovery steady-state free precession, dual sequence method at 1.5T (Espree, Siemens Medical Solutions) during Regadenoson vasodilator stress and at rest, using 0.05 mmol/kg Gadolinium-DTPA. A proton density-weighted image was acquired at the beginning of the perfusion sequence. B1-field inhomogeneity was approximated using a third-order surface fit to myocardial and body signal intensities on the PD image or the first SSFP image. The estimated intensity bias field was

Quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow: a comparison of methods to correct for surface coil-related field inhomogeneity