206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31313066)
1. Evaluation of quantitative CMR perfusion imaging by comparison with simultaneous
Kero T; Johansson E; Engström M; Eggers KM; Johansson L; Ahlström H; Lubberink M
J Nucl Cardiol; 2021 Aug; 28(4):1252-1266. PubMed ID: 31313066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison between quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging and [
Everaars H; van Diemen PA; Bom MJ; Schumacher SP; de Winter RW; van de Ven PM; Raijmakers PG; Lammertsma AA; Hofman MBM; van der Geest RJ; Götte MJ; van Rossum AC; Nijveldt R; Danad I; Driessen RS; Knaapen P
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2020 Jul; 47(7):1688-1697. PubMed ID: 31822958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantitative myocardial perfusion response to adenosine and regadenoson in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.
Kero T; Saraste A; Lagerqvist B; Sörensen J; Pikkarainen E; Lubberink M; Knuuti J
J Nucl Cardiol; 2022 Feb; 29(1):24-36. PubMed ID: 34386859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of clinical non-commercial tools for automated quantification of myocardial blood flow using oxygen-15-labelled water PET/CT.
Harms HJ; Nesterov SV; Han C; Danad I; Leonora R; Raijmakers PG; Lammertsma AA; Knuuti J; Knaapen P
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2014 Apr; 15(4):431-41. PubMed ID: 24107905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb positron emission tomography: clinical validation with 15O-water.
Prior JO; Allenbach G; Valenta I; Kosinski M; Burger C; Verdun FR; Bischof Delaloye A; Kaufmann PA
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2012 Jun; 39(6):1037-47. PubMed ID: 22398957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects.
Brown LAE; Onciul SC; Broadbent DA; Johnson K; Fent GJ; Foley JRJ; Garg P; Chew PG; Knott K; Dall'Armellina E; Swoboda PP; Xue H; Greenwood JP; Moon JC; Kellman P; Plein S
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2018 Jul; 20(1):48. PubMed ID: 29983119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quantification of myocardial blood flow by CZT-SPECT with motion correction and comparison with
Otaki Y; Manabe O; Miller RJH; Manrique A; Nganoa C; Roth N; Berman DS; Germano G; Slomka PJ; Agostini D
J Nucl Cardiol; 2021 Aug; 28(4):1477-1486. PubMed ID: 31452085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Fully quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion ready for clinical use: a comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography.
Engblom H; Xue H; Akil S; Carlsson M; Hindorf C; Oddstig J; Hedeer F; Hansen MS; Aletras AH; Kellman P; Arheden H
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2017 Oct; 19(1):78. PubMed ID: 29047385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Coronary risk factors and myocardial blood flow in patients evaluated for coronary artery disease: a quantitative [15O]H2O PET/CT study.
Danad I; Raijmakers PG; Appelman YE; Harms HJ; de Haan S; van den Oever ML; van Kuijk C; Allaart CP; Hoekstra OS; Lammertsma AA; Lubberink M; van Rossum AC; Knaapen P
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2012 Jan; 39(1):102-12. PubMed ID: 22005845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. SPECT myocardial blood flow quantitation toward clinical use: a comparative study with
Hsu B; Hu LH; Yang BH; Chen LC; Chen YK; Ting CH; Hung GU; Huang WS; Wu TC
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2017 Jan; 44(1):117-128. PubMed ID: 27585576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Voxel-wise quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: effect of variations in methodology and validation with positron emission tomography.
Miller CA; Naish JH; Ainslie MP; Tonge C; Tout D; Arumugam P; Banerji A; Egdell RM; Clark D; Weale P; Steadman CD; McCann GP; Ray SG; Parker GJ; Schmitt M
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2014 Jan; 16(1):11. PubMed ID: 24460930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reproducibility and accuracy of quantitative myocardial blood flow assessment with (82)Rb PET: comparison with (13)N-ammonia PET.
El Fakhri G; Kardan A; Sitek A; Dorbala S; Abi-Hatem N; Lahoud Y; Fischman A; Coughlan M; Yasuda T; Di Carli MF
J Nucl Med; 2009 Jul; 50(7):1062-71. PubMed ID: 19525467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Splenic switch-off as a predictor for coronary adenosine response: validation against 13N-ammonia during co-injection myocardial perfusion imaging on a hybrid PET/CMR scanner.
Patriki D; von Felten E; Bakula A; Giannopoulos AA; Kamani CH; Schwyzer M; Messerli M; Benz DC; Gebhard C; Gräni C; Pazhenkottil AP; Kaufmann PA; Fuchs TA; Buechel RR
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2021 Jan; 23(1):3. PubMed ID: 33407586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Integrated Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Diagnostics Improve Detection of Functionally Significant Coronary Artery Stenosis by 13N-ammonia Positron Emission Tomography.
Lee JM; Kim CH; Koo BK; Hwang D; Park J; Zhang J; Tong Y; Jeon KH; Bang JI; Suh M; Paeng JC; Cheon GJ; Na SH; Ahn JM; Park SJ; Kim HS
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging; 2016 Sep; 9(9):. PubMed ID: 27609817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Simultaneous
Nazir MS; Gould SM; Milidonis X; Reyes E; Ismail TF; Neji R; Roujol S; O'Doherty J; Xue H; Barrington SF; Schaeffter T; Razavi R; Marsden P; Kellman P; Plein S; Chiribiri A
Eur J Hybrid Imaging; 2019; 3(1):15. PubMed ID: 31544170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Hybrid imaging using quantitative H215O PET and CT-based coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease.
Danad I; Raijmakers PG; Appelman YE; Harms HJ; de Haan S; van den Oever ML; Heymans MW; Tulevski II; van Kuijk C; Hoekstra OS; Lammertsma AA; Lubberink M; van Rossum AC; Knaapen P
J Nucl Med; 2013 Jan; 54(1):55-63. PubMed ID: 23232274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance stress T1 mapping and [15O]H2O positron emission tomography in patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease.
Everaars H; van Diemen PA; Biesbroek PS; Hopman LHGA; Bom MJ; Schumacher SP; de Winter RW; van de Ven PM; Raijmakers PG; Lammertsma AA; Hofman MBM; Nijveldt R; Götte MJ; van Rossum AC; Danad I; Driessen RS; Knaapen P
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2022 Jan; 23(2):229-237. PubMed ID: 33982071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with dynamic perfusion 3.0 Tesla MRI: Validation with (15) O-water PET.
Tomiyama Y; Manabe O; Oyama-Manabe N; Naya M; Sugimori H; Hirata K; Mori Y; Tsutsui H; Kudo K; Tamaki N; Katoh C
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2015 Sep; 42(3):754-62. PubMed ID: 25557072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Low-dose quantitative myocardial blood flow imaging using 15O-water and PET without attenuation correction.
Lubberink M; Harms HJ; Halbmeijer R; de Haan S; Knaapen P; Lammertsma AA
J Nucl Med; 2010 Apr; 51(4):575-80. PubMed ID: 20237035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of Revascularization on Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow as Assessed by Serial [
Driessen RS; Danad I; Stuijfzand WJ; Schumacher SP; Knuuti J; Mäki M; Lammertsma AA; van Rossum AC; van Royen N; Raijmakers PG; Knaapen P
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging; 2018 May; 11(5):e007417. PubMed ID: 29703779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
