Table 4.

Differentiation of MBF and MFR by the TOF method

All subjects (N = 20)	Segments (N = 340)			Territories (N = 60)
	Rest MBF	Stress MBF	MFR	Rest MBF	Stress MBF	MFR
3D-RAMLA	0.836 ± 0.185 (0.221)	2.058 ± 0.721 (0.350)	2.46 ± 0.75 (0.303)	0.836 ± 0.159 (0.244)	2.080 ± 0.673 (0.354)	2.49 ± 0.71 (0.324)
TOF-OSEM	0.955 ± 0.201 (0.211)	2.149 ± 0.697 (0.324)	2.25 ± 0.57 (0.253)	0.949 ± 0.166 (0.232)	2.147 ± 0.621 (0.325)	2.26 ± 0.50 (0.273)
Differentiation by TOF	+14.2%	+4.4%	−8.5%	+13.5%	+3.2%	−9.2%
P value	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	n.s.	<.001

Volunteers (N = 7)	Rest MBF	Stress MBF	MFR	Rest MBF	Stress MBF	MFR
3D-RAMLA	0.795 ± 0.127 (0.159)	2.094 ± 0.850 (0.404)	2.63 ± 0.99 (0.373)	0.795 ± 0.115 (0.141)	2.108 ± 0.831 (0.385)	2.65 ± 1.00 (0.367)
TOF-OSEM	0.906 ± 0.197 (0.216)	2.125 ± 0.748 (0.350)	2.35 ± 0.69 (0.292)	0.904 ± 0.178 (0.192)	2.112 ± 0.717 (0.331)	2.33 ± 0.66 (0.276)
Differentiation by TOF	+14.0%	+1.5%	−10.6%	+13.7%	+0.2%	−12.1%
P value	<.001	n.s.	<.001	<.001	n.s.	.002

CAD patients (N = 13)	Rest MBF	Stress MBF	MFR	Rest MBF	Stress MBF	MFR
3D-RAMLA	0.859 ± 0.207 (0.240)	2.039 ± 0.642 (0.314)	2.37 ± 0.56 (0.236)	0.858 ± 0.176 (0.203)	2.065 ± 0.581 (0.278)	2.40 ± 0.49 (0.200)
TOF-OSEM	0.982 ± 0.199 (0.203)	2.162 ± 0.669 (0.309)	2.20 ± 0.49 (0.223)	0.973 ± 0.156 (0.158)	2.166 ± 0.571 (0.260)	2.22 ± 0.39 (0.172)
Differentiation by TOF	+14.3%	+6.0%	−7.2%	+13.4%	+4.9%	−7.5%
P value	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	.048	<.001

Quantitative data are expressed as mean ± SD (CV). Both the segmental rest and stress MBF values from TOF-OSEM were higher than those from 3D-RAMLA, especially under rest conditions; as such, the segmental MFR via TOF-OSEM reconstruction was lower. Territorial quantitative analyses were almost similar to segmental analyses. However, an observed increase in the stress MBF from TOF-OSEM was not statistically significant. Almost all values of coefficient of variances for TOF-OSEM were lower than those for 3D-RAMLA; n.s., not statistically significant; CV, coefficient of variance