Fig. 2
The modified dual bolus method and the dual bolus method compared with PET. The values of MBF during stress (square) and at rest (circle) determined with PET compared with MBF determined with (a) modified dual bolus method and (b) dual bolus method. The same data is presented in (c) and (d) respectively, but reporting the values of MBF separately for each animal. In the rest study of pig#2, the change of heart rate between the injections of the low and high concentrations of contrast agent and this introduced variation in the input functions, and subsequently in the calculated MBF values. Bland-Altman plots of differences between (e) MBFPET and MBFmodified dual bolus and (f) MBFPET and MBF dual bolus vs. the mean of measurements with the corresponding methods. The limits of agreement (mean ± 1.96SD) are also presented. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to study the statistical significance of difference between MBFPET and MBFmodified dual bolus and (MBF) MBFPET and MBF dual bolus. Statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was found in both cases