Skip to main content
. 2012 May 29;13(12):1008–1015. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jes091

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The myocardium at risk by T2-weighted imaging and CE-SSFP. (A) MaR by T2-weighted imaging (T2W) vs. CE-SSFP. The solid line denotes the line of identity. (B) The Bland–Altman graph showing the difference between the MaR quantified by T2W and CE-SSFP vs. the mean of the two methods. The difference between T2W and CE-SSFP was −3.0 ± 3.9%. CE-SSFP, contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession; LV, left ventricle; the solid line denotes mean difference; dashed lines denote ±2SD.