Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20100 Milan, Italy.
Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy.
Tomography. 2021 Sep 28;7(4):513-522. doi: 10.3390/tomography7040044.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between flow/velocity data obtained from 2D-phase-contrast (PC) and 4D-flow in patients scheduled for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Image acquisition was performed using a 1.5 T scanner. We compared mean flow rates, vessel areas, and peak velocities obtained during the acquisition with both techniques in 20 consecutive patients, 15 males and 5 females aged 69 ± 5 years (mean ± standard deviation). There was a good correlation between both techniques for the CCA flow ( = 0.65, < 0.001), whereas for the ICA flow and ECA flow the correlation was only moderate ( = 0.4, = 0.011 and = 0.45, = 0.003, respectively). Correlations of peak velocities between methods were good for CCA ( = 0.56, < 0.001) and moderate for ECA ( = 0.41, = 0.008). There was no correlation for ICA ( = 0.04, = 0.805). Cross-sectional area values between methods showed no significant correlations for CCA ( = 0.18, = 0.269), ICA ( = 0.1, = 0.543), and ECA ( = 0.05, = 0.767). Conclusion: the 4D-flow imaging provided a good correlation of CCA and a moderate correlation of ICA flow rates against 2D-PC, underestimating peak velocities and overestimating cross-sectional areas in all carotid segments.
这项研究的目的是评估在计划治疗颈动脉狭窄的患者中，从二维相位对比（PC）和四维血流（4D-flow）获得的流量/速度数据之间的一致性。图像采集是使用 1.5T 扫描仪进行的。我们比较了 20 例连续患者（15 名男性和 5 名女性，年龄 69±5 岁）在两种技术下采集的平均流量、血管面积和峰值速度。CCA 流量的两种技术之间具有良好的相关性（ = 0.65， < 0.001），而 ICA 流量和 ECA 流量的相关性仅为中度（ = 0.4， = 0.011 和 = 0.45， = 0.003）。CCA 的峰值速度之间的相关性良好（ = 0.56， < 0.001），而 ECA 的相关性为中度（ = 0.41， = 0.008）。ICA 无相关性（ = 0.04， = 0.805）。CCA （ = 0.18， = 0.269）、ICA （ = 0.1， = 0.543）和 ECA （ = 0.05， = 0.767）之间的截面面积值无显著相关性。结论：4D-flow 成像提供了 CCA 的良好相关性，以及 ICA 流量与 2D-PC 的中度相关性，低估了峰值速度并高估了所有颈动脉段的截面面积。
