4.5 Article

Accuracy of the cylinder approximation for susceptometric measurement of intravascular oxygen saturation

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 808-813

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.23034

Keywords

magnetic resonance oximetry; blood oxygen saturation; magnetic resonance susceptometry; field calculation; simulation

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL109545, K25 HL111422] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R21 HD069390] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Susceptometry-based MR oximetry has previously been shown suitable for quantifying hemoglobin oxygen saturation in large vessels for studying vascular reactivity and quantification of global cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen utilization. A key assumption underlying this method is that large vessels can be modeled as long paramagnetic cylinders. However, bifurcations, tapering, noncircular cross-section, and curvature of these vessels produce substantial deviations from cylindrical geometry, which may lead to errors in hemoglobin oxygen saturation quantification. Here, the accuracy of the long cylinder approximation is evaluated via numerical computation of the induced magnetic field from 3D segmented renditions of three veins of interest (superior sagittal sinus, femoral and jugular vein). At a typical venous oxygen saturation of 65%, the absolute error in hemoglobin oxygen saturation estimated via a closed-form cylinder approximation was 2.6% hemoglobin oxygen saturation averaged over three locations in the three veins studied and did not exceed 5% for vessel tilt angles <30 degrees at any one location. In conclusion, the simulation results provide a significant level of confidence for the validity of the cylinder approximation underlying MR susceptometry-based oximetry of large vessels. Magn Reson Med, 2012. (c) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available