Suppr超能文献

激光散斑对比成像与激光多普勒评估微血管功能的比较。

Comparison of laser speckle contrast imaging with laser Doppler for assessing microvascular function.

机构信息

Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, A125 Collegiate Hall, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK.

出版信息

Microvasc Res. 2011 Nov;82(3):326-32. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2011.07.007. Epub 2011 Jul 22.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the inter-day reproducibility of post-occlusive reactive hyperaemia (PORH) and sympathetic vasomotor reflexes assessed by single-point laser Doppler flowmetry (SP-LDF), integrating-probe LDF (IP-LDF) and laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI), and the spatial variability of PORH assessed by IP-LDF and LSCI. We also evaluated the relationship between IP-LDF and LSCI perfusion values across a broad range of skin blood flows.

METHODS

Eighteen healthy adults (50% male, age 27 ± 4 years) participated in this study. Using SP-LDF, IP-LDF and LSCI, indices of skin blood flow were measured on the forearm during PORH (1-, 5- and 10-min occlusions) and on the finger pad during inspiratory gasp and cold pressor tests. These tests were repeated 3-7 days later. Data were converted to cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC; laser Doppler flow/mean arterial pressure) and expressed as absolute and relative changes from pre-stimulus CVC (ΔCVC(ABS) and ΔCVC(REL), respectively), as well as normalised to peak CVC for the PORH tests. Reproducibility was expressed as within-subjects coefficients of variation (CV, in %) and intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The reproducibility of PORH on the forearm was poorer when assessed with SP-LDF and IP-LDF compared to LSCI (e.g., CV for 5-min PORH ΔCVC(ABS)=35%, 27% and 19%, respectively), with no superior method of data expression. In contrast, the reproducibility of the inspiratory gasp and cold pressor test responses on the finger pad were better with SP-LDF and IP-LDF compared to LSCI (e.g., CV for inspiratory gasp ΔCVC(REL)=13%, 7% and 19%, respectively). The spatial variability of PORH responses was poorer with IP-LDF compared to LSCI (e.g., CV ranging 11-35% versus 3-16%, respectively). The association between simultaneous LSCI and IP-LDF perfusion values was non-linear.

CONCLUSION

The reproducibility of cutaneous PORH was better when assessed with LSCI compared to SP-LDF and IP-LDF; probably due to measuring larger skin areas (lower inter-site variability). However, when measuring sympathetic vasomotor reflexes on the finger pad, reproducibility was better with SP-LDF and IP-LDF, perhaps due to the high sensitivity of LSCI to changes in skin blood flow at low levels.

摘要

目的

比较单点激光多普勒流量仪(SP-LDF)、集成探头激光多普勒流量仪(IP-LDF)和激光散斑对比成像仪(LSCI)评估的后阻塞性充血反应(PORH)和交感血管反射的日内可重复性,以及 IP-LDF 和 LSCI 评估的 PORH 的空间变异性。我们还评估了 IP-LDF 和 LSCI 灌注值在广泛的皮肤血流范围内的关系。

方法

18 名健康成年人(50%为男性,年龄 27±4 岁)参与了这项研究。使用 SP-LDF、IP-LDF 和 LSCI,在 PORH(1、5 和 10 分钟闭塞)期间测量前臂的皮肤血流指数,在吸气喘息和冷加压试验期间测量指垫的皮肤血流指数。这些测试在 3-7 天后重复进行。数据转换为皮肤血管传导率(激光多普勒流量/平均动脉压),并表示为与刺激前血管传导率的绝对和相对变化(分别为ΔCVC(ABS)和ΔCVC(REL)),以及 PORH 测试的峰值血管传导率归一化。可重复性表示为个体内变异系数(CV,%)和组内相关系数。

结果

与 LSCI 相比,SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 评估前臂 PORH 的可重复性较差(例如,5 分钟 PORH ΔCVC(ABS)的 CV 分别为 35%、27%和 19%),并且数据表达没有更好的方法。相比之下,指垫上的吸气喘息和冷加压试验反应的可重复性在 SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 上优于 LSCI(例如,吸气喘息 ΔCVC(REL)的 CV 分别为 13%、7%和 19%)。PORH 反应的空间变异性在 IP-LDF 上比 LSCI 差(例如,CV 范围分别为 11-35%和 3-16%)。同时 LSCI 和 IP-LDF 灌注值之间的相关性是非线性的。

结论

与 SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 相比,LSCI 评估皮肤 PORH 的可重复性更好;这可能是因为测量了更大的皮肤区域(更低的站点间变异性)。然而,当测量指垫上的交感血管反射时,SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 的可重复性更好,这可能是因为 LSCI 对低水平皮肤血流变化具有更高的敏感性。

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