Impact of Temporal Resolution and Methods for Correction on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Quantification.
Impact of Temporal Resolution and Methods for Correction on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Quantification.
复制标题
时间分辨率和校正方法对心脏磁共振灌注定量的影响。
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.28180
复制
发表时间：
2022-12
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Chiribiri, Amedeo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Milidonis, Xenios;Nazir, Muhummad Sohaib;Chiribiri, Amedeo
关键词：
磁共振首过灌注图像的采集与患者的心率（HR）同步，并控制时间分辨率。这与心肌血流量（MBF）量化过程有内在联系，并影响MBF准确性，但程度尚不清楚。评估时间分辨率对定量灌注的影响，并比较解释其变异性的方法。前瞻性体模和回顾性临床研究。模拟，心脏灌注体模，和30例患者（16，53%）或无（14，47%）冠状动脉疾病。3.0 T/2D饱和恢复破坏梯度回波序列。模拟了参考MBF（1 mL/g/min-5 mL/g/min）和HR（30 bpm-150 bpm）范围内的动态灌注数据。在患者和不同时间分辨率的体模中进行灌注成像。MBF和心肌灌注储备（MPR）的量化没有时间分辨率的校正或以下校正MBF缩放的基础上采样间隔或数据插值之前的量化。使用费米反卷积、截断奇异值分解和一室模型对模拟数据进行量化，而仅使用费米反卷积对体模和临床数据进行量化。Shapiro-Wilk正态性检验、模拟中测量MBF准确度的百分比误差（PE）以及采用Bonferroni校正的单因素重复测量方差分析，以比较临床MBF和MPR。统计学显著性设定为P < 0.05。对于费米去卷积和一个模拟1 mL/g/min的示例，在30-150 bpm范围内，没有时间分辨率校正的MBF PE在55.4%和−62.7%之间。MBF缩放后的PE介于−22.2%和−6.8%之间，相同HR数据插值后的PE介于−14.2%和−14.2%之间。插值HR为240 bpm时，PE降至≤ 10%。临床静息和应激MBF和MPR在分析之间存在显著差异。准确的灌注定量需要考虑时间分辨率的变化，在定量之前进行数据插值，减少不同分辨率之间的MBF变化。3 1
Acquisition of magnetic resonance first‐pass perfusion images is synchronized to the patient's heart rate (HR) and governs the temporal resolution. This is inherently linked to the process of myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification and impacts MBF accuracy but to an unclear extent. To assess the impact of temporal resolution on quantitative perfusion and compare approaches for accounting for its variability. Prospective phantom and retrospective clinical study. Simulations, a cardiac perfusion phantom, and 30 patients with (16, 53%) or without (14, 47%) coronary artery disease. 3.0 T/2D saturation recovery spoiled gradient echo sequence. Dynamic perfusion data were simulated for a range of reference MBF (1 mL/g/min–5 mL/g/min) and HR (30 bpm–150 bpm). Perfusion imaging was performed in patients and a phantom for different temporal resolutions. MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were quantified without correction for temporal resolution or following correction by either MBF scaling based on the sampling interval or data interpolation prior to quantification. Simulated data were quantified using Fermi deconvolution, truncated singular value decomposition, and one‐compartment modeling, whereas phantom and clinical data were quantified using Fermi deconvolution alone. Shapiro–Wilk tests for normality, percentage error (PE) for measuring MBF accuracy in simulations, and one‐way repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction to compare clinical MBF and MPR. Statistical significance set at P < 0.05. For Fermi deconvolution and an example simulated 1 mL/g/min, the MBF PE without correction for temporal resolution was between 55.4% and −62.7% across 30–150 bpm. PE was between −22.2% and −6.8% following MBF scaling and between −14.2% and −14.2% following data interpolation across the same HR. An interpolated HR of 240 bpm reduced PE to ≤10%. Clinical rest and stress MBF and MPR were significantly different between analyses. Accurate perfusion quantification needs to account for the variability of temporal resolution, with data interpolation prior to quantification reducing MBF variability across different resolutions. 3 1
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Biglands, J.;Magee, D.;Radjenovic, A.
通讯作者：
Radjenovic, A.
影响因子：
37.8
作者：
CZERNIN, J;MULLER, P;SCHELBERT, HR
通讯作者：
SCHELBERT, HR
DOI：
10.1007/bf02353672
发表时间：
1996-06-01
期刊：
JOURNAL OF PHARMACOKINETICS AND BIOPHARMACEUTICS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Madden, FN;Godfrey, KR;Bates, RA
通讯作者：
Bates, RA
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Kellman, Peter;Hansen, Michael S.;Xue, Hui
通讯作者：
Xue, Hui
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Kunze, Karl P.;Rischpler, Christoph;Nekolla, Stephan G.
通讯作者：
Nekolla, Stephan G.