Suppr超能文献

激光散斑对比成像与激光多普勒成像评估人体皮肤血流的比较。

Comparison between laser speckle contrast imaging and laser Doppler imaging to assess skin blood flow in humans.

机构信息

Inserm CIC3, Grenoble Clinical Research Center, Grenoble University Hospital, France.

出版信息

Microvasc Res. 2011 Sep;82(2):147-51. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2011.06.006. Epub 2011 Jul 1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We tested the linearity between skin blood flux recorded with laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) and laser Doppler imaging (LDI), comparing different ways of expressing data. A secondary objective was to test within-subject variability of baseline flux with the two techniques.

METHODS

We performed local heating at 36, 39, 42, and 44°C on the forearm of healthy volunteers, and measured cutaneous blood flux with LDI and LSCI. Biological zero (BZ) was obtained by occluding the brachial artery. We expressed data as raw arbitrary perfusion units (APUs) and as a percentage increase from baseline (%BL), with and without subtracting BZ. Inter-site variability was expressed as a within subject coefficient of variation (CV).

RESULTS

Twelve participants were enrolled. Inter-site variability at baseline was lower with LSCI (CV=9.2%) than with LDI (CV=20.7%). We observed an excellent correlation between both techniques when data were expressed as raw APUs or APU-BZ (R=0.90; p<0.001). The correlation remained correct for %BL (R=0.77, p<0.001), but decreased for %BL-BZ (R=0.44, p=0.003). Bland-Altman plots revealed a major proportional bias between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that skin blood flux measured with LSCI is linearly related to the LDI signal over a wide range of perfusion. Subtracting BZ does not affect this linearity but introduces variability in baseline flux, thus decreasing the correlation when data are expressed as a function of baseline. Finally, systematic bias makes it impossible to assimilate arbitrary perfusion units provided by the two systems.

摘要

目的

我们通过比较不同的数据表示方法,测试了激光散斑对比成像(LSCI)和激光多普勒成像(LDI)记录的皮肤血流通量之间的线性关系。次要目的是测试两种技术的基础通量的个体内变异性。

方法

我们在健康志愿者的前臂上进行 36、39、42 和 44°C 的局部加热,并使用 LDI 和 LSCI 测量皮肤血流通量。通过阻塞肱动脉获得生物零(BZ)。我们将数据表示为原始任意灌注单位(APU)和相对于基线的百分比增加(%BL),有和没有减去 BZ。站点间变异性表示为个体内变异系数(CV)。

结果

共纳入 12 名参与者。LSCI 时的基础通量的站点间变异性较低(CV=9.2%),而 LDI 时的站点间变异性较高(CV=20.7%)。当数据表示为原始 APU 或 APU-BZ 时,我们观察到两种技术之间具有极好的相关性(R=0.90;p<0.001)。当数据表示为%BL 时,相关性仍然正确(R=0.77,p<0.001),但当数据表示为%BL-BZ 时,相关性降低(R=0.44,p=0.003)。Bland-Altman 图显示两种技术之间存在主要的比例偏差。

结论

本研究表明,LSCI 测量的皮肤血流通量与 LDI 信号在广泛的灌注范围内呈线性相关。减去 BZ 不会影响这种线性关系,但会引入基础通量的变异性,从而当数据表示为基础函数时降低相关性。最后,系统偏差使得无法同化两个系统提供的任意灌注单位。

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