Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Pelc, N. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Pelc, N. J.

Radiology, Vol 189, 699-701, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Quantitative differential pulmonary perfusion: MR imaging versus radionuclide lung scanning

JM Silverman, PJ Julien, RJ Herfkens and NJ Pelc
Department of Radiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of quantitative analysis of differential pulmonary artery blood flow performed with phase-contrast cine magnetic resonance (MR) images with those of differential radionuclide pulmonary perfusion scanning in preoperative lung transplantation patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty preoperative lung transplantation patients underwent prospective, quantitative analysis of differential pulmonary artery blood flow performed with MR imaging and radionuclide pulmonary perfusion scanning. MR imaging analysis was performed at 1.5 T with a phase-contrast cine pulse sequence to acquire data perpendicular to each central pulmonary artery. RESULTS: Comparative analysis of differential pulmonary perfusion showed excellent correlation between the two modalities in all patients (P = .0001). MR imaging enabled calculation of the pulmonary artery blood flow to each lung; radionuclide lung scanning enabled only calculation of relative perfusion to each lung. CONCLUSION: MR imaging is as effective as radionuclide lung scanning in assessment of relative, and superior for determination of absolute differential, pulmonary perfusion.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 HeartHome page
S Sridharan, G Derrick, J Deanfield, and A M Taylor
Assessment of differential branch pulmonary blood flow: a comparative study of phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide lung perfusion imaging.
Heart, July 1, 2006; 92(7): 963 - 968.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
K. I. Norton, C. Tong, R. B. J. Glass, and J. C. Nielsen
Cardiac MR Imaging Assessment Following Tetralogy of Fallot Repair
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2006; 26(1): 197 - 211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
T. P. Smith
Pulmonary Embolism: What's Wrong with This Diagnosis?
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1489 - 1497.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.