. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2010 Apr 11;4(4):258–266. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2010.04.003

Table 2.

Quantitative CT Results by Post-Processing Technique

	Thin MPR	Thick MPR	MIP	MinIP	p Value^*
Average HU of infarcted myocardial segments	37.2 ± 27.0	45.8 ± 23.7	83.7 ± 24.7	4.4 ± 27.4	< 0.001
Standard deviation of HU in infarcted myocardial segments	23.2 ± 10.5	12.1 ± 5.4	15.89 ± 6.5	18.9 ± 7.1	< 0.001
Average HU in normal remote myocardial segments	98.4 ± 12.6	94.9 ± 13.9	127.6 ± 13.9	69.8 ± 15.2	< 0.001
Standard deviation of HU in normal remote myocardial segments	23.4 ± 6.5	13.5 ± 5.7	17.8 ± 5.4	16.7 ± 4.3	< 0.001
Average HU in LV cavity at the level of infarcted segments	313.3 ± 61.4	306.6 ± 64.7	347.1 ± 60.0	278.3 ± 65.4	< 0.001
Absolute difference in HU, infarcted vs. normal segments	61.2 ± 27.5	49.1 ± 25.7	43.9 ± 24.7	65.4 ± 27.7	< 0.001
Relative difference in HU (%), infarcted vs. normal segments	60.5 ± 26.2	51.1 ± 26.4	33.5 ± 19.5	95.6 ± 42.9	< 0.001
Contrast to noise ratio (CNR)	2.9 ± 1.5	4.1 ± 2.6	2.7 ± 1.6	4.2 ± 2.1	< 0.001

Values presented as mean ± SD for each post-processing technique. Relative difference in HU calculated as the difference between the average HU of the infarcted myocardium and the average HU of the normal myocardium, divided by the HU of the normal myocardium. Contrast to noise ratio calculated as the difference between the average HU of the infarcted myocardium and the average HU of the normal myocardium, divided by the SD of the normal myocardium.

p values represent significance of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for a difference among the reformat techniques.