Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Myocardial Perfusion and Late Gadolinium Enhancement Imaging in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance to Assess Coronary Artery Disease

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Part of the book series: Contemporary Cardiology ((CONCARD))

  • 1864 Accesses

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a well established imaging modality for assessing patients with coronary artery disease. CMR images can provide high quality information about myocardial anatomy, function, perfusion, and viability. These are all critical elements in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease. Perfusion and viability imaging by CMR most commonly depend on gadolinium contrast agents. This chapter aims to provide background in the methods, validations, and clinical utility of these methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anzidei M, Napoli A, Marincola BC, et al. Gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography of carotid arteries: does steady-state imaging improve accuracy of first-pass imaging? Comparison with selective digital subtraction angiography. Radiology. 2009;251:457–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Perreault P, Edelman MA, Baum RA, et al. MR angiography with gadofosveset trisodium for peripheral vascular disease: phase II trial. Radiology. 2003;229:811–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bane O, Lee DC, Benefield BC, et al. Leakage and water exchange characterization of gadofosveset in the myocardium. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32:224–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Aime S, Caravan P. Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:1259–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim RJ, Fieno DS, Parrish TB, et al. Relationship of MRI delayed contrast enhancement to irreversible injury, infarct age, and contractile function. Circulation. 1999;100:1992–2002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1445–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahrholdt H, Wagner A, Judd RM, Sechtem U, Kim RJ. Delayed enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1461–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ugander M, Oki AJ, Hsu LY, et al. Extracellular volume imaging by magnetic resonance imaging provides insights into overt and sub-clinical myocardial pathology. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1268–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Simonetti OP, Kim RJ, Fieno DS, et al. An improved MR imaging technique for the visualization of myocardial infarction. Radiology. 2001;218:215–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2002;105:539–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kellman P, Derbyshire JA, Agyeman KO, McVeigh ER, Arai AE. Extended coverage first-pass perfusion imaging using slice-interleaved TSENSE. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51:200–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jogiya R, Kozerke S, Morton G, et al. Validation of dynamic 3-dimensional whole heart magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging against fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:756–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Manka R, Paetsch I, Kozerke S, et al. Whole-heart dynamic three-dimensional magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease defined by fractional flow reserve: determination of volumetric myocardial ischaemic burden and coronary lesion location. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2016–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kellman P, Arai AE. Imaging sequences for first pass perfusion –a review. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2007;9:525–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mordini FE, Haddad T, Hsu LY, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:1283–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002666.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Watkins S, McGeoch R, Lyne J, et al. Validation of magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary heart disease. Circulation. 2009;120:2207–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bernhardt P, Walcher T, Rottbauer W, Wohrle J. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla: a comparison to fractional flow reserve. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28:2049–56.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Walcher T, Manzke R, Hombach V, Rottbauer W, Wohrle J, Bernhardt P. Myocardial perfusion reserve assessed by T2-prepared steady-state free precession blood oxygen level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging in comparison to fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:580–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bettencourt N, Chiribiri A, Schuster A, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of functionally significant obstructive coronary artery disease: a prospective study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:765–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiribiri A, Hautvast GL, Lockie T, et al. Assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location: quantitative analysis of transmural perfusion gradients by high-resolution MRI versus FFR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:600–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Groothuis JG, Beek AM, Brinckman SL, et al. Combined non-invasive functional and anatomical diagnostic work-up in clinical practice: the magnetic resonance and computed tomography in suspected coronary artery disease (MARCC) study. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1990–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pereira E, Bettencourt N, Ferreira N, et al. Incremental value of adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance in coronary artery disease detection. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:4160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ebersberger U, Makowski MR, Schoepf UJ, et al. Magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0 Tesla for the identification of myocardial ischaemia: comparison with coronary catheter angiography and fractional flow reserve measurements. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:1174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Radjenovic A, et al. Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary heart disease: the CE-MARC study. Trials. 2009;10:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, et al. MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:480–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:775–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. Superior diagnostic performance of perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus SPECT to detect coronary artery disease: the secondary endpoints of the multicenter multivendor MR-IMPACT II (Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary Artery Disease Trial). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Christian TF, Rettmann DW, Aletras AH, et al. Absolute myocardial perfusion in canines measured by using dual-bolus first-pass MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;232:677–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hsu LY, Kellman P, Arai AE. Nonlinear myocardial signal intensity correction improves quantification of contrast-enhanced first-pass MR perfusion in humans. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:793–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lockie T, Ishida M, Perera D, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:70–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee DC, Simonetti OP, Harris KR, et al. Magnetic resonance versus radionuclide pharmacological stress perfusion imaging for flow-limiting stenoses of varying severity. Circulation. 2004;110:58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Salerno M, Beller GA. Noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:412–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hsu LY, Groves DW, Aletras AH, Kellman P, Arai AE. A quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow by contrast-enhanced first-pass CMR perfusion imaging: microsphere validation in dogs and feasibility study in humans. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:154–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuhl HP, Katoh M, Buhr C, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance perfusion imaging versus invasive fractional flow reserve for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of epicardial coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1090–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morton G, Chiribiri A, Ishida M, et al. Quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1546–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Morton G, Jogiya R, Plein S, Schuster A, Chiribiri A, Nagel E. Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging: inter-study reproducibility. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13:954–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Patel AR, Antkowiak PF, Nandalur KR, et al. Assessment of advanced coronary artery disease: advantages of quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:561–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Popio KA, Gorlin R, Bechtel D, Levine JA. Postextrasystolic potentiation as a predictor of potential myocardial viability: preoperative analyses compared with studies after coronary bypass surgery. Am J Cardiol. 1977;39:944–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Baer FM, Voth E, Schneider CA, Theissen P, Schicha H, Sechtem U. Comparison of low-dose dobutamine-gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. A functional and morphological approach to the detection of residual myocardial viability. Circulation. 1995;91:1006–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Baer FM, Theissen P, Schneider CA, et al. Dobutamine magnetic resonance imaging predicts contractile recovery of chronically dysfunctional myocardium after successful revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1040–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kellman P, Arai AE, McVeigh ER, Aletras AH. Phase-sensitive inversion recovery for detecting myocardial infarction using gadolinium-delayed hyperenhancement. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47:372–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Peukert D, Laule M, Taupitz M, Kaufels N, Hamm B, Dewey M. 3D and 2D delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging for detection of myocardial infarction: preclinical and clinical results. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:788–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kellman P, Xue H, Olivieri LJ, et al. Dark blood late enhancement imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Muscogiuri G, Rehwald WG, Schoepf UJ, et al. T(Rho) and magnetization transfer and INvErsion recovery (TRAMINER)-prepared imaging: a novel contrast-enhanced flow-independent dark-blood technique for the evaluation of myocardial late gadolinium enhancement in patients with myocardial infarction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;45:1429–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bandettini WP, Kellman P, Mancini C, et al. MultiContrast Delayed Enhancement (MCODE) improves detection of subendocardial myocardial infarction by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a clinical validation study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Xue H, Shah S, Greiser A, et al. Motion correction for myocardial T1 mapping using image registration with synthetic image estimation. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67:1644–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kloner RA, Jennings RB. Consequences of brief ischemia: stunning, preconditioning, and their clinical implications: part 1. Circulation. 2001;104:2981–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Wesbey GE, Higgins CB, McNamara MT, et al. Effect of gadolinium-DTPA on the magnetic relaxation times of normal and infarcted myocardium. Radiology. 1984;153:165–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. McNamara MT, Tscholakoff D, Revel D, et al. Differentiation of reversible and irreversible myocardial injury by MR imaging with and without gadolinium-DTPA. Radiology. 1986;158:765–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Peshock RM, Malloy CR, Buja LM, Nunnally RL, Parkey RW, Willerson JT. Magnetic resonance imaging of acute myocardial infarction: gadolinium diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid as a marker of reperfusion. Circulation. 1986;74:1434–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Rehr RB, Peshock RM, Malloy CR, et al. Improved in vivo magnetic resonance imaging of acute myocardial infarction after intravenous paramagnetic contrast agent administration. Am J Cardiol. 1986;57:864–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fieno DS, Kim RJ, Chen EL, Lomasney JW, Klocke FJ, Judd RM. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of myocardium at risk: distinction between reversible and irreversible injury throughout infarct healing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1985–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Rehwald WG, Fieno DS, Chen EL, Kim RJ, Judd RM. Myocardial magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent concentrations after reversible and irreversible ischemic injury. Circulation. 2002;105:224–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hsu LY, Natanzon A, Kellman P, Hirsch GA, Aletras AH, Arai AE. Quantitative myocardial infarction on delayed enhancement MRI. Part I: animal validation of an automated feature analysis and combined thresholding infarct sizing algorithm. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23:298–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Maskali F, Poussier S, Marie PY, et al. High-resolution simultaneous imaging of SPECT, PET, and MRI tracers on histologic sections of myocardial infarction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:229–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Thornhill RE, Prato FS, Wisenberg G, Moran GR, Sykes J. Determining the extent to which delayed-enhancement images reflect the partition-coefficient of Gd-DTPA in canine studies of reperfused and unreperfused myocardial infarction. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:1069–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Moran GR, Thornhill RE, Sykes J, Prato FS. Myocardial viability imaging using Gd-DTPA: physiological modeling of infarcted myocardium, and impact on injection strategy and imaging time. Magn Reson Med. 2002;48:791–800.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Selvanayagam JB, Kardos A, Francis JM, et al. Value of delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in predicting myocardial viability after surgical revascularization. Circulation. 2004;110:1535–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Knuesel PR, Nanz D, Wyss C, et al. Characterization of dysfunctional myocardium by positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance: relation to functional outcome after revascularization. Circulation. 2003;108:1095–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wu E, Judd RM, Vargas JD, Klocke FJ, Bonow RO, Kim RJ. Visualisation of presence, location, and transmural extent of healed Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2001;357:21–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, Holly TA, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: an imaging study. Lancet. 2003;361:374–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kuhl HP, Beek AM, van der Weerdt AP, et al. Myocardial viability in chronic ischemic heart disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1341–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:162–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Mahrholdt H, Wagner A, Holly TA, et al. Reproducibility of chronic infarct size measurement by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2002;106:2322–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Wellnhofer E, Olariu A, Klein C, et al. Magnetic resonance low-dose dobutamine test is superior to SCAR quantification for the prediction of functional recovery. Circulation. 2004;109:2172–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nelson C, McCrohon J, Khafagi F, Rose S, Leano R, Marwick TH. Impact of scar thickness on the assessment of viability using dobutamine echocardiography and thallium single-photon emission computed tomography: a comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1248–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Steel K, Broderick R, Gandla V, et al. Complementary prognostic values of stress myocardial perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement imaging by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2009;120:1390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Coelho-Filho OR, Seabra LF, Mongeon FP, et al. Stress myocardial perfusion imaging by CMR provides strong prognostic value to cardiac events regardless of patient’s sex. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:850–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Cheong BY, Muthupillai R, Wilson JM, et al. Prognostic significance of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging: survival of 857 patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2009;120:2069–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Bertaso AG, Richardson JD, Wong DT, et al. Prognostic value of adenosine stress perfusion cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement in an intermediate cardiovascular risk population. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:2055–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Bingham SE, Hachamovitch R. Incremental prognostic significance of combined cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, adenosine stress perfusion, delayed enhancement, and left ventricular function over preimaging information for the prediction of adverse events. Circulation. 2011;123:1509–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Bodi V, Sanchis J, Lopez-Lereu MP, et al. Prognostic value of dipyridamole stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1174–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Bello D, Fieno DS, Kim RJ, et al. Infarct morphology identifies patients with substrate for sustained ventricular tachycardia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1104–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Bleeker GB, Kaandorp TA, Lamb HJ, et al. Effect of posterolateral scar tissue on clinical and echocardiographic improvement after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circulation. 2006;113:969–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Andrew E. Arai & Li-Yueh Hsu

Authors
  1. Andrew E. Arai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li-Yueh Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew E. Arai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiovascular Division, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Raymond Y. Kwong

  2. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Michael Jerosch-Herold

  3. Department of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Bobak Heydari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Arai, A.E., Hsu, LY. (2019). Myocardial Perfusion and Late Gadolinium Enhancement Imaging in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance to Assess Coronary Artery Disease. In: Kwong, R., Jerosch-Herold, M., Heydari, B. (eds) Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Contemporary Cardiology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8841-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8841-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-8839-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-8841-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation