4.7 Article

Non-contrast MRI perfusion angiosome in diabetic feet

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 99-105

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3337-0

Keywords

Skeletal muscle perfusion; MRI; Diabetes; Angiosomes

Funding

  1. Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1 TR000448]
  2. Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation
  3. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology
  4. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR000448] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The purpose of this study is to develop a non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approach to evaluate skeletal muscle perfusion in the diabetic foot based on the concept of angiosomes of the foot. Methods Five healthy volunteers and five participants with diabetes (HbA1c= 7.2 +/- 1.8 %) without a history of peripheral artery disease were examined. The non-contrast perfusion measurements were performed during a toe flexion challenge. Absolute perfusion maps were created and two regions (medial and lateral) on the maps were segmented based on angiosomes. Result Regional difference in the perfusion of foot muscle was readily visualized in the MRI perfusion angiosomes during the challenge. In the participants with diabetes, the perfusion during toe flexion challenge was significantly lower than in healthy volunteers (P<0.01). The average perfusion for the medial plantar region of the right foot was lower in subjects with diabetes (38 +/- 9 ml/min/100 g) than in healthy subjects (93 +/- 33 ml/min/100 g). Conclusions Non-contrast MRI perfusion angiosome maps demonstrate the feasibility of determining regional perfusion in foot muscles during toe challenge and may facilitate evaluation of muscle perfusion in diabetic feet.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available