Intracranial Blood Flow Quantification by Accelerated Dual-venc 4D Flow MRI: Comparison With Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound.
Intracranial Blood Flow Quantification by Accelerated Dual-venc 4D Flow MRI: Comparison With Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound.
复制标题
通过加速双速度编码4D 流动磁共振成像进行颅内血流定量分析：与经颅多普勒超声的比较
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.28115
复制
发表时间：
2022-10
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Sorond, Farzaneh A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mahinrad, Simin;Tan, Can Ozan;Ma, Yue;Aristova, Maria;Milstead, Andrew L.;Lloyd-Jones, Donald;Schnell, Susanne;Markl, Michael;Sorond, Farzaneh A.
最近推出的用于颅内血流动力学评估的双腔4D血流MRI可能为经颅多普勒超声（TCD）等成熟工具提供一种有前途的补充方法，并克服其一些缺点。然而，缺乏比较双腔4D血流MRI和TCD颅内血流测量的数据。比较双腔4D血流MRI和TCD的脑血流速度测量值。前瞻性队列。共有25名健康受试者（56 ± 4岁，44%为女性）。使用时间分辨三维相位对比序列和三维速度编码的3 T/dual‐venc 4D flow MRI。双侧大脑中动脉（MCA）的峰值速度测量值通过双腔4D血流MRI和TCD进行量化。MRI数据由两名独立观察员（S.M和Y.M.）量化TCD由经过培训的技术人员（A.L.M.）进行。我们评估了4D Flow MRI和TCD测量之间的一致性，以及4D Flow MRI测量的观察者间一致性。采用Bland-Altman分析和方差系数比较MRI和TCD的峰值流速。组内相关系数（ICC）用于评估MRI观察者之间的一致性。P值< 0.05为有统计学意义。基于双腔4D血流MRI的双侧MCA峰值速度测量结果具有良好的观察者间一致性（左侧和右侧MCA的ICC分别为0.97和0.96）。与TCD相比，Dual‐venc 4D flow MRI显著低估了左侧和右侧MCA的峰值速度（偏倚分别为0.13 [0.59，−0.33] m/sec和0.15 [0.47，−0.17] m/sec）。左侧MCA和右侧MCA的双腔4D Flow MRI和TCD测量值之间的变异系数分别为26%和22%。使用双腔4D血流MRI评估MCA峰值速度的观察者间一致性极佳，与TCD相比，低估≤20%。3第二阶段
Dual‐venc 4D flow MRI, recently introduced for the assessment of intracranial hemodynamics, may provide a promising complementary approach to well‐established tools such as transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) and overcome some of their disadvantages. However, data comparing intracranial flow measures from dual‐venc 4D flow MRI and TCD are lacking. To compare cerebral blood flow velocity measures derived from dual‐venc 4D flow MRI and TCD. Prospective cohort. A total of 25 healthy participants (56 ± 4 years old, 44% female). A 3 T/dual‐venc 4D flow MRI using a time‐resolved three‐dimensional phase‐contrast sequence with three‐dimensional velocity encoding. Peak velocity measurements in bilateral middle cerebral arteries (MCA) were quantified from dual‐venc 4D flow MRI and TCD. The MRI data were quantified by two independent observers (S.M and Y.M.) and TCD was performed by a trained technician (A.L.M.). We assessed the agreement between 4D flow MRI and TCD measures, and the interobserver agreement of 4D flow MRI measurements. Peak velocity from MRI and TCD was compared using Bland–Altman analysis and coefficient of variance. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess MRI interobserver agreement. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There was excellent interobserver agreement in dual‐venc 4D flow MRI‐based measurements of peak velocity in bilateral MCA (ICC = 0.97 and 0.96 for the left and right MCA, respectively). Dual‐venc 4D flow MRI significantly underestimated peak velocity in the left and right MCA compared to TCD (bias = 0.13 [0.59, −0.33] m/sec and 0.15 [0.47, −0.17] m/sec, respectively). The coefficient of variance between dual‐venc 4D flow MRI and TCD measurements was 26% for the left MCA and 22% for the right MCA. There was excellent interobserver agreement for the assessment of MCA peak velocity using dual‐venc 4D flow MRI, and ≤20% under‐estimation compared with TCD. 3 Stage 2
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Markl, Michael;Harloff, Andreas;Frydrychowicz, Alex
通讯作者：
Frydrychowicz, Alex
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Harloff, A.;Albrecht, F.;Markl, M.
通讯作者：
Markl, M.
DOI：
10.3174/ajnr.a3010
发表时间：
2012-09
期刊：
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
影响因子：
--
作者：
Chang W;Loecher MW;Wu Y;Niemann DB;Ciske B;Aagaard-Kienitz B;Kecskemeti S;Johnson KM;Wieben O;Mistretta C;Turski P
通讯作者：
Turski P
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Rivera-Rivera, Leonardo A.;Turski, Patrick;Wieben, Oliver
通讯作者：
Wieben, Oliver
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
de Riva, Nicolas;Budohoski, Karol P.;Czosnyka, Marek
通讯作者：
Czosnyka, Marek