TABLE 1

Comparison of Hypoperfusion Indices Between Stress and Rest and Between Time 1 and Time 2 for 3 Methods of Measure

Method of measure	Time 1 (before revascularization)			Time 2 (after revascularization)
Method of measure		Stress	Rest	Stress	Rest
Visual segmental analysis	45.6% ± 13.6%	39.2% ± 14.4%*	35.7% ± 16.5%	31.3% ± 15.9%
Quantitative approach, deficit load (paired t test, linear regression)^†	18.2% ± 8.6%	13.7% ± 8.2%*	16.3% ± 7.9%	13.1% ± 7.3%
		(P < 0.0001; r = 0.80)	(P < 0.0001; r = 0.83)	(P < 0.0001; r = 0.86)	(P < 0.0001; r = 0.88)
Quantitative approach, segmental (paired t test, linear regression)^†	25.0% ± 8.6%	19.5% ± 8.5%*	21.8% ± 9.2%	17.4% ± 8.1%
		(P < 0.0001; r = 0.67)	(P < 0.0001; r = 0.75)	(P < 0.0001; r = 0.79)	(P < 0.0001; r = 0.81)

↵* Comparison between stress and rest shows significance (paired t test) at time 1 for all 3 methods, with P < 0.0001.
↵^† Comparison between quantitative approaches and the visual reference.