4.7 Article

Relationships Between Hypercarbic Reactivity, Cerebral Blood Flow, and Arterial Circulation Times in Patients With Moyamoya Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 1129-1139

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24070

关键词

CBF; BOLD; reactivity; Moyamoya disease; stroke; stenosis

资金

  1. NIH/NINDS [1R01NS07882801A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo evaluate the correlation between angiographic measures of Moyamoya disease and tissue-level impairment from measurements of tissue perfusion and cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR). Materials and MethodsThe relationship between perfusion-weighted arterial spin labeling (ASL) and hypercarbic blood oxygenation-level dependent (BOLD) CVR and time-to-peak (TTP) were compared with angiographically measured risk factors, including arterial circulation time (ACT) and modified Suzuki Score (mSS) in patients (n = 15) with Moyamoya disease. ResultsHemodynamic contrasts provided information not apparent from structural or angiographic imaging. Mean z-statistics demonstrate that BOLD is significantly (P = 0.017) higher in low mSS hemispheres (z-statistic = 5.0 2.5) compared with high mSS hemispheres (z-statistic = 3.7 +/- 1.7), suggesting that regions with less advanced stages of Moyamoya disease have higher reactivity. After correcting for multiple comparisons, a strong trend for a direct relationship (R = 0.38; P = 0.03) between BOLD TTP and ACT was observed, and a significant inverse relationship between CBF and ACT (R = -0.47; P = 0.01) was found, demonstrating that BOLD and ASL contrasts reflect DSA measures of vascular compromise in Moyamoya disease, albeit with different sensitivity. ConclusionCorrelative measures between angiography and hemodynamic methods suggest that BOLD and ASL could be used for expanding the diagnostic imaging infrastructure in Moyamoya patients and potentially tracking tissue response to revascularization. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;38:1129-1139. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.7
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