Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for non-invasive assessment of vascular function: Validation against ultrasound
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for non-invasive assessment of vascular function: Validation against ultrasound
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10976640500526993
复制
发表时间：
2006-01-01
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
Wiesmann, F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Leeson, CP;Robinson, M;Wiesmann, F
在心血管疾病的临床研究中，超声是一种公认的血管功能量化方法。我们确定心血管磁共振成像(CMR)是否可以提供血管功能的可比性评估。在17名对照组受试者中，我们使用CMR量化了内皮依赖性(血流介导的扩张，FMD)和非内皮依赖性的肱动脉扩张、肱动脉和颈动脉的扩张性、主动脉顺应性和脉搏波速度。这些测量结果与已建立的超声方法获得的臂动脉和颈动脉测量结果进行了比较。然后，12名志愿者接受了两种模式的重复测量。在同一受试者中，血管内皮功能和动脉结构的成像方式之间有很好的一致性(超声和CMR之间的FMD值分别为0.14±6.8%和-0.70±2.2 mm(2)，FMD值之间的相关性为0.62，p=0.01，Area=0.87，p=0.0001)。研究间的重复性也相似(FMD的变异系数：CMR=0.3，超声=0.3，肱动脉面积的变异系数：CMR=0.1，超声=0.1)。如果重复研究间隔几天，功能测量的可比性和重复性就不那么强(同一天超声FMD的变异系数=0.1，间隔几天=0.4)。CMR和超声对血管结构和功能的定量测量具有很好的一致性，两种方法的重复性都很好。CMR的主要优势在于，它允许对血管功能的外周和中枢测量进行一站式综合评估。
Ultrasound is an established modality for quantification of vascular function in clinical studies of cardiovascular disease. We determined whether cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can provide a comparable assessment of vascular function. In seventeen control subjects, we used CMR to quantify endothelium-dependent ( flow mediated dilatation, FMD) and endothelium-independent dilatation of the brachial artery, brachial and carotid distensibility, aortic compliance, and pulse wave velocity. These were compared to brachial and carotid measurements obtained by established ultrasound protocols. Twelve of the volunteers then underwent repeated measurements with both modalities. There was good agreement between imaging modalities for measures of endothelial function and arterial structure in the same subjects ( difference between CMR and ultrasound for FMD = 0.14 +/- 6.8%, and brachial artery area=- 0.7 +/- 2.2 mm(2), correlation between modalities for FMD = 0.62, p = 0.01 and for area = 0.87, p=< 0.0001). Inter-study reproducibility was also similar ( coefficient of variation ( CV) for FMD: CMR = 0.3, ultrasound = 0.3, CV for brachial artery area: CMR= 0.1, ultrasound = 0.1). Comparability and reproducibility were not as strong for functional measures if repeated studies were several days apart ( CV for FMD by ultrasound on the same day = 0.1 and several days apart = 0.4). CMR and ultrasound show good agreement for quantitative measures of vascular structure and function with good reproducibility for both modalities. The major advantage of CMR is that it allows one-stop integrated assessment of both peripheral and central measures of vascular function.