4.6 Article

Cerebral oxygen metabolism in neonates with congenital heart disease quantified by MRI and optics

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2013.214

关键词

cerebral blood flow; cerebral hemodynannics; diffuse optics; MRI; near-infrared spectroscopy; neonatal ischemia

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21 HL088182, RO1 NS072338, K23 NS052380, R01 NS060653, P41 EB015893, T32NS007413]
  2. Dana Foundation
  3. Steve and Judy Wolfson Family Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neonatal congenital heart disease (CHD) is associated with altered cerebral hemodynamics and increased risk of brain injury. Two novel noninvasive techniques, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffuse optical and correlation spectroscopies (diffuse optical spectroscopy (DOS), diffuse correlation spectroscopy (DCS)), were employed to quantify cerebral blood flow (CBF) and oxygen metabolism (CMRO2) of 32 anesthetized CHD neonates at rest and during hypercapnia. Cerebral venous oxygen saturation (SO2) and CBF were measured simultaneously with MRI in the superior sagittal sinus, yielding global oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) and global CMRO2 in physiologic units. In addition, microvascular tissue oxygenation (StO(2)) and indices of microvascular CBF (BFI) and CMRO2 (CMR021) in the frontal cortex were determined by DOS/DCS. Median resting-state MRI-measured OEF, CBF, and CMRO2 were 0.38, 9.7 mUminute per 100 g and 0.52 mL 02/minute per 100 g, respectively. These CBF and CMRO2 values are lower than literature reports for healthy term neonates (which are sparse and quantified using different methods) and resemble values reported for premature infants. Comparison of MRI measurements of global 5 +/- 02, CBF, and CMRO2 with corresponding local DOS/DCS measurements demonstrated strong linear correlations (R-2=0.69, 0.67, 0.67; P < 0.001), permitting calibration of DOS/DCS indices. The results suggest that MRI and optics offer new tools to evaluate cerebral hemodynamics and metabolism in CHD neonates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据