应用时间分辨容积相位对比 MRI 提高心血管血流定量分析。
Improved cardiovascular flow quantification with time-resolved volumetric phase-contrast MRI.
机构信息
Department of Radiology, 725 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305-5654, USA.
出版信息
Pediatr Radiol. 2011 Jun;41(6):711-20. doi: 10.1007/s00247-010-1932-z. Epub 2011 Jan 11.
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular flow is commonly assessed with two-dimensional, phase-contrast MRI (2-D PC-MRI). However, scan prescription and acquisition over multiple planes is lengthy, often requires direct physician oversight and has inconsistent results. Time-resolved volumetric PC-MRI (4-D flow) may address these limitations.
OBJECTIVE
We assess the degree of agreement and internal consistency between 2-D and 4-D flow quantification in our clinical population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Software enabling flow calculation from 4-D flow was developed in Java. With IRB approval and HIPAA compliance, 18 consecutive patients without shunts were identified who underwent both (1) conventional 2-D PC-MRI of the aorta and main pulmonary artery and (2) 4-D flow imaging. Aortic and pulmonary flow rates were assessed with both techniques.
RESULTS
Both methods showed general agreement in flow rates (ρ: 0.87-0.90). Systemic and pulmonary arterial flow rates were well-correlated (ρ: 4-D 0.98-0.99, 2-D 0.93), but more closely matched with 4-D (P < 0.05, Brown-Forsythe). Pulmonary flow rates were lower than systemic rates for 2-D (P < 0.05, two-sample t-test). In a sub-analysis of patients without pulmonary or aortic regurgitation, 2-D showed improved correlation of flow rates while 4-D phase-contrast remained tightly correlated (ρ: 4-D 0.99-1.00, 2-D 0.99).
CONCLUSION
4-D PC-MRI demonstrates greater consistency than conventional 2-D PC-MRI for flow quantification.
背景
心血管流动通常使用二维相位对比磁共振成像（2-D PC-MRI）进行评估。然而，多平面扫描处方和采集过程冗长，通常需要直接由医生监督，并且结果不一致。时间分辨容积相位对比磁共振成像（4-D 流）可能解决这些限制。
目的
我们评估了在我们的临床人群中，2-D 和 4-D 流量定量之间的一致性和内部一致性程度。
材料和方法
使用 Java 开发了能够从 4-D 流中计算流量的软件。在获得 IRB 批准和 HIPAA 合规性的情况下，确定了 18 名连续无分流的患者，他们均接受了以下两项检查：（1）主动脉和主肺动脉的常规 2-D PC-MRI；（2）4-D 血流成像。使用这两种技术评估主动脉和肺动脉流量。
结果
两种方法的流量均显示出一般一致性（ρ：0.87-0.90）。全身和肺动脉流量密切相关（ρ：4-D 为 0.98-0.99，2-D 为 0.93），但与 4-D 更匹配（P < 0.05，Brown-Forsythe）。2-D 的肺动脉流量低于全身流量（P < 0.05，两样本 t 检验）。在无肺动脉或主动脉反流的患者亚分析中，2-D 显示出更好的流量相关性，而 4-D 相位对比仍保持紧密相关（ρ：4-D 为 0.99-1.00，2-D 为 0.99）。
结论
与传统的 2-D PC-MRI 相比，4-D PC-MRI 显示出更高的流量定量一致性。
Zotero 插件