alexa Abstract | Comparison of myocardial bridging prevalence using 64-slice versus 256-slice computed tomography scanners: What has changed with recent innovations in CT?

Biomedical Research
Open Access

OMICS International organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations

700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)


Objective: To compare the incidence and appearance of myocardial bridging (MB) by computed tomography (CT) angiography using 64-slice versus 256-slice CT.

Methods: In total, 775 consecutive patients who underwent coronary CT angiography were evaluated using a 64-slice or a 128x2-slice dual-source scanner.

Results: The prevalence of MB was 13.9% using 64-slice-CT and 31.5% using 256-slice-CT. The superficial type of MB segments was detected three times more frequently by 256-slice-CT.

Conclusions: A higher prevalence of MB and the superficial type of bridging were revealed with the 256- slice-CT scanner. Advances in CT technology may enable detection and potentially prevent the unwanted effects of MB.

To read the full article Peer-reviewed Article PDF image | Peer-reviewed Full Article image

Author(s): Cemile Ayse Grmeli Jlide Yagmur Ramazan zdemir Zeynep Maras zdemir Aysegl Sagir Kahraman Cemil olak


Myocardial bridging, Computed tomography, Coronary artery, #

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version