Table 5.

Pearson’s correlation (r) for 3D-HM versus CMR and 3D-HM versus LVA in “good” and “excellent” image quality (n = 75 and n = 123)

	Image quality “good”		Image quality “excellent”
	r	p	r	p
3D-HM vs. CMR
EF (%)	0.806	< 0.0001*	0.827	< 0.0001*
EDV (ml)	0.874	< 0.0001*	0.919	< 0.0001*
ESV (ml)	0.945	< 0.0001*	0.940	< 0.0001*
3D-HM vs. LVA
EF (%)	0.694	0.001*	0.776	0.001*

*Statistically significant correlation (p<0.05)