Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects
Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12968-018-0462-y
复制
发表时间：
2018-07-09
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
Plein, Sven
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brown, Louise A. E.;Onciul, Sebastian C.;Plein, Sven
背景：心肌缺血的非侵入性评估是冠状动脉疾病诊断的基石。使用正电子发射断层扫描（PET）测量心肌血流量（MBF）是目前无创定量心肌缺血的参考标准。动态心肌灌注心血管磁共振（CMR）提供了一种替代PET和最近开发的方法与自动内联灌注映射显示良好的相关性CMR和PET之间的MBF值。本研究评估的可重复性心肌灌注映射CMR在healthy subjects.Methods：42名健康受试者被招募，并进行腺苷负荷和静息灌注CMR两次访问。重复扫描，最短间隔为7天。研究内休息和应力MBF的可重复性进行了评估，采集之间的间隔为15分钟。测量研究间静息和负荷MBF和心肌灌注储备（MPR）的整体心肌和区域冠状动脉领土和切片。研究内重复整体静息MBF无显著差异（0.65 +/- 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 +/- 0.12 ml/g/min，p = 0.24，重复性系数（RC）= 24%）或强制降解（2.89 +/- 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 +/- 0.64 ml/g/min，p = 0.41，RC = 29%）MBF。总体静息MBF的研究间重复性无显著差异（0.64 +/- 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 +/- 0.15 ml/g/min，p = 0.80，RC = 32%），应力MBF（2.71 ± 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 ± 0.57 ml/g/min，p = 0.12，RC = 33%）或MPR（4.24 ± 0.69 vs 3.73 ± 0.76，p = 0.25，RC = 36%）。应力（RC = 30-37%）和静息MBF（RC = 32-36%）的区域重复性良好，但MPR（RC = 35-43%）的区域重复性较差。受试者内的变异系数为8%的休息和11%的应力在同一研究中，和11%的休息和12%的应力之间的studies.Conclusions：全自动，内联，心肌灌注CMR映射显示出良好的可重复性，是类似于已发表的PET文献。静息和应力MBF的重复性均优于MPR，尤其是在区域分析中。
Background: Non-invasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia is a cornerstone of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using positron emission tomography (PET) is the current reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial ischaemia. Dynamic myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers an alternative to PET and a recently developed method with automated inline perfusion mapping has shown good correlation of MBF values between CMR and PET. This study assessed the repeatability of myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR in healthy subjects.Methods: Forty-two healthy subjects were recruited and underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion CMR on two visits. Scans were repeated with a minimum interval of 7 days. Intrastudy rest and stress MBF repeatability were assessed with a 15-min interval between acquisitions. Interstudy rest and stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured for global myocardium and regionally for coronary territories and slices.Results: There was no significant difference in intrastudy repeated global rest MBF (0.65 +/- 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 +/- 0.12 ml/g/min, p = 0.24, repeatability coefficient (RC) = 24%) or stress (2.89 +/- 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 +/- 0.64 ml/g/min, p = 0.41, RC = 29%) MBF. No significant difference was seen in interstudy repeatability for global rest MBF (0.64 +/- 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 +/- 0.15 ml/g/min, p = 0.80, RC = 32%), stress MBF (2.71 +/- 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 +/- 0.57 ml/g/min, p = 0.12, RC = 33%) or MPR (4.24 +/- 0.69 vs 3.73 +/- 0.76, p = 0.25, RC = 36%). Regional repeatability was good for stress (RC = 30-37%) and rest MBF (RC = 32-36%) but poorer for MPR (RC = 35-43%). Within subject coefficient of variation was 8% for rest and 11% for stress within the same study, and 11% for rest and 12% for stress between studies.Conclusions: Fully automated, inline, myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR shows good repeatability that is similar to the published PET literature. Both rest and stress MBF show better repeatability than MPR, particularly in regional analysis.