Department of Radiology, University of Florida, 655 W. 8th St., Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.
Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Sep;29(7):966-74. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2011.04.012. Epub 2011 Jun 8.
The loss of pulmonary artery (PA) compliance has significant pathophysiological effect on the right ventricle. Noninvasive and reliable assessment of PA wall stiffness would be an essential determiner of right heart load and a clinically useful factor to assess cardiovascular risk. Two MRI techniques have been proposed for assessing PA stiffness by measuring pulse wave velocity (PWV): transit time (TT) and flow area (QA). However, no data are available that compares the two techniques and evaluates their performance, especially over a wide range of PWV values or at 3.0-T, which is the purpose of the present study. Thirty-three patients with different heart conditions were imaged using optimized high-temporal resolution and high-spatial resolution velocity-encoding MRI sequences. Statistical analysis was conducted to study intermethod, interobserver and intraobserver variabilities. The PWV measurements using TT and QA techniques showed good agreement (P>0.1). The Bland-Altman analysis showed negligible differences between the two methods (mean±S.D.=0.11±0.35 m/s, correlation coefficient r=0.94). The repeated measurements showed low interobserver and intraobserver variabilities, although the S.D. of the differences was larger in the QA technique. The mean±S.D. of the TT/QA measurement differences were -0.05±0.2/0.0±0.36 m/s and 0.02±0.26/0.02±0.39 m/s for the interobserver and intraobserver differences, respectively. In conclusion, each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. The two techniques result in similar measurements, although the QA method is more subjective due to its dependency on operator intervention.
肺动脉顺应性的丧失对右心室有重要的病理生理影响。非侵入性和可靠的肺动脉壁僵硬评估将是右心负荷的重要决定因素,也是评估心血管风险的临床有用因素。有两种 MRI 技术通过测量脉搏波速度 (PWV) 来评估 PA 硬度:通过时间 (TT) 和流量面积 (QA)。然而,尚无比较两种技术并评估其性能的数据,特别是在广泛的 PWV 值或 3.0-T 范围内,这正是本研究的目的。对 33 例具有不同心脏状况的患者进行了成像,使用优化的高时间分辨率和高空间分辨率速度编码 MRI 序列。进行了统计分析,以研究方法间、观察者间和观察者内的变异性。使用 TT 和 QA 技术测量的 PWV 具有良好的一致性(P>0.1)。Bland-Altman 分析表明两种方法之间差异可忽略不计(平均值±S.D.为 0.11±0.35 m/s,相关系数 r=0.94)。重复测量显示观察者间和观察者内的变异性较低,尽管 QA 技术的差异标准差较大。观察者间和观察者内差异的 TT/QA 测量差值的平均值±S.D.分别为 -0.05±0.2/0.0±0.36 m/s 和 0.02±0.26/0.02±0.39 m/s。总之,每种技术都有其自身的优点和缺点。两种技术的测量结果相似,尽管 QA 方法更主观,因为它依赖于操作者的干预。