Suppr超能文献

心电图门控比外周脉搏门控更精确,可用于使用相位对比电影 MRI 量化脊髓 CSF 搏动。

ECG Gating Is More Precise Than Peripheral Pulse Gating When Quantifying Spinal CSF Pulsations Using Phase Contrast Cine MRI.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, University of Louisville, 530 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY 40202.

St. Michael's Medical Center, Newark, NJ.

出版信息

Acad Radiol. 2020 Apr;27(4):552-562. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.06.015. Epub 2019 Jul 25.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare accuracy of spinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pulsatile flow measurements at cervical, thoracic, and lumbar levels using Phase Contrast Cine MRI (PCCMRI) with retrospective electrocardiogram (recg) vs. retrospective peripheral pulse gating (rppg) gating.

METHODS

We scanned 10 healthy volunteers, ages 23-46 years, using external recg-gated or rppg-gated 2D PCCCMRI at 3T. Transverse scans of CSF, arteries and veins scans were at C1/C4/T1/T7/L1-L3. Data were analyzed with custom Matlab-based software, measuring CSF, arterial (descending aorta, abdominal aorta, common carotid artery, ICA, and vertebral artery) and venous (internal jugular vein and inferior vena cava) flow, velocity and region of interest area.

RESULTS

recgPCCMRI produced less quantitative and temporal statistical variation than pcgPCCMRI when analyzing CSF flow. The instantaneous recgPCCMRI CSF flows consistently decreased craniocaudally, while the results with rppgPCCMRI were less consistent. The recgPCCMRI root mean square error values were 6.04, 6.94, 4.81, 4.49, and 4.16 for C1, C4, T1, T7, and L2, compared with 7.24, 8.97, 7.9, 7.82, and 6.68 for rppgPCCMRI. Results were independent of analysts. Summations of standard errors produced similar results. RppgPCCMRI also showed increase variability of CSF flow correlations with arteries and veins compared to recgPCCMRI. None-the-less, when recgPCCMRI is considered the reference standard, there is good correlations between rppgPCCMRI and recgPCCMRIdata sets, when averaged over cohorts of at least five subjects.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that recgPCCMRI is more quantitatively and temporally precise than rppgPCCMRI in CSF quantitative flow analysis. Pulse-gating CSF flow results are reasonable when averaged over cohorts of at least five subjects, but subtle conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

摘要

目的

使用相位对比电影磁共振成像(PCCMRI)比较颈椎、胸椎和腰椎水平的脊髓脑脊液(CSF)搏动流量测量的准确性,分别使用回顾性心电图(recg)与回顾性外周脉搏门控(rppg)门控。

方法

我们使用外部 recg 门控或 rppg 门控的 2D PCCCMRI 在 3T 对 10 名年龄在 23-46 岁的健康志愿者进行扫描。CSF、动脉和静脉的横向扫描位于 C1/C4/T1/T7/L1-L3。使用基于自定义 Matlab 的软件对数据进行分析,测量 CSF、动脉(降主动脉、腹主动脉、颈总动脉、ICA 和椎动脉)和静脉(颈内静脉和下腔静脉)的流量、速度和感兴趣区域面积。

结果

当分析 CSF 流量时,recgPCCMRI 比 pcgPCCMRI 产生的定量和时间统计变化更小。瞬时 recgPCCMRI CSF 流量始终沿颅尾方向减少,而 rppgPCCMRI 的结果则不太一致。recgPCCMRI 的均方根误差值分别为 C1、C4、T1、T7 和 L2 的 6.04、6.94、4.81、4.49 和 4.16,而 rppgPCCMRI 的分别为 7.24、8.97、7.9、7.82 和 6.68。结果与分析人员无关。标准误差的总和产生了类似的结果。与 recgPCCMRI 相比,rppgPCCMRI 还显示出 CSF 流量与动脉和静脉之间的相关性变化更大。尽管如此,当将 recgPCCMRI 视为参考标准时,当对至少五名受试者的队列进行平均时,rppgPCCMRI 和 recgPCCMRIdata 集之间存在很好的相关性。

结论

我们的结果表明,在 CSF 定量流量分析中,recgPCCMRI 比 rppgPCCMRI 更具定量和时间精确性。当对至少五名受试者的队列进行平均时,脉搏门控 CSF 流量结果是合理的,但应谨慎解释细微的结论。

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