Suppr超能文献

多层双向平面内速度编码磁共振成像评估主动脉脉搏波速度的改良方法。

Improved aortic pulse wave velocity assessment from multislice two-directional in-plane velocity-encoded magnetic resonance imaging.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Nov;32(5):1086-94. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22359.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) assessment by in-plane velocity-encoded magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 14 patients selected for cardiac catheterization on suspicion of coronary artery disease and 15 healthy volunteers, PWV was assessed with multislice two-directional in-plane velocity-encoded MRI (PWV(i.p.)) and compared with conventionally assessed PWV from multisite one-directional through-plane velocity-encoded MRI (PWV(t.p.)). In patients, PWV was also obtained from intraarterially acquired pressure-time curves (PWV(pressure)), which is considered the gold standard reference method. In volunteers, PWV(i.p.) and PWV(t.p.) were obtained in duplicate in the same examination to test reproducibility.

RESULTS

In patients, PWV(i.p.) showed stronger correlation and similar variation with PWV(pressure) than PWV(t.p.) (Pearson correlation r = 0.75 vs. r = 0.58, and coefficient of variation [COV] = 10% vs. COV = 12%, respectively). In volunteers, repeated PWV(i.p.) assessment showed stronger correlation and less variation than repeated PWV(t.p.) (proximal aorta: r = 0.97 and COV = 10% vs. r = 0.69 and COV = 17%; distal aorta: r = 0.94 and COV = 12% vs. r = 0.90 and COV = 16%; total aorta: r = 0.97 and COV = 7% vs. r = 0.90 and COV = 13%).

CONCLUSION

PWV(i.p.) is an improvement over conventional PWV(t.p.) by showing higher agreement as compared to the gold standard (PWV(pressure)) and higher reproducibility for repeated MRI assessment.

摘要

目的

评估平面内速度编码磁共振成像(MRI)评估主动脉脉搏波速度(PWV)的准确性和可重复性。

材料与方法

在 14 例因怀疑冠心病而行心导管检查的患者和 15 例健康志愿者中,使用多层双向平面内速度编码 MRI(PWV(i.p.))评估 PWV,并与传统的多部位单向平面外速度编码 MRI(PWV(t.p.))进行比较。在患者中,还从动脉内获得的压力-时间曲线(PWV(pressure))获得 PWV,这被认为是金标准参考方法。在志愿者中,在同一检查中重复进行两次 PWV(i.p.)和 PWV(t.p.)测量,以测试可重复性。

结果

在患者中,PWV(i.p.)与 PWV(pressure)的相关性更强,变化更相似,而 PWV(t.p.)则较弱(Pearson 相关系数 r = 0.75 对 r = 0.58,变异系数 [COV] = 10% 对 COV = 12%)。在志愿者中,重复测量 PWV(i.p.)的相关性更强,变化更小,而重复测量 PWV(t.p.)则较弱(近端主动脉:r = 0.97 和 COV = 10% 对 r = 0.69 和 COV = 17%;远端主动脉:r = 0.94 和 COV = 12% 对 r = 0.90 和 COV = 16%;总主动脉:r = 0.97 和 COV = 7% 对 r = 0.90 和 COV = 13%)。

结论

与金标准(PWV(pressure))相比,PWV(i.p.)具有更高的一致性,与传统的 PWV(t.p.)相比具有更高的可重复性,因此是一种改进。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验