PURPOSE: To compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) for quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with stable CAD underwent CMR and [15O]H2O PET. The CMR imaging protocol included late gadolinium enhancement to rule out presence of scar tissue and perfusion imaging using a dual sequence, single bolus technique. Absolute MBF was determined for the three main vascular territories at rest and during vasodilator stress.

RESULTS: CMR measurements of regional stress MBF and MFR showed only moderate correlation to those obtained using PET (r = 0.39; P < 0.001 for stress MBF and r = 0.36; P < 0.001 for MFR). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a significant bias of 0.2 ± 1.0 mL/min/g for stress MBF and - 0.5 ± 1.2 for MFR. CMR-derived stress MBF and MFR demonstrated area under the curves of respectively 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.83) and had optimal cutoff values of 2.35 mL/min/g and 2.25 for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion, defined as [15O]H2O PET-derived stress MBF ≤ 2.3 mL/min/g and MFR ≤ 2.5. Using these cutoff values, CMR and PET were concordant in 137 (77%) vascular territories for stress MBF and 135 (80%) vascular territories for MFR.

CONCLUSION: CMR measurements of stress MBF and MFR showed modest agreement to those obtained with [15O]H2O PET. Nevertheless, stress MBF and MFR were concordant between CMR and [15O]H2O PET in 77% and 80% of vascular territories, respectively.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1688-1697
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Issue number7
Early online date10 Dec 2019
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2020


  • Cardiovascular magnetic resonance
  • Myocardial blood flow
  • Myocardial flow reserve
  • Positron emission tomography
  • Quantitative myocardial perfusion

Cite this