4.4 Article

Effect of cardiac cycle on ultrasound assessment of endothelial function

期刊

VASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 103-108

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/1358863x02vm425oa

关键词

brachial artery; endothelial function; ultrasound; vasodilation

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [1 K23 RR16176-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the effects of non-ECG-triggered imaging during ultrasound studies of endothelial function, brachial artery diameters were measured throughout the cardiac cycle at rest, during reactive hyperemia, and after administration of nitroglycerin. R-wave-triggered imaging using a 7.5-MHz ultrasound transducer with acquisition every 41.7-66.7 ms was performed in 24 subjects. Cardiac cycle-related variation was computed as the maximum per cent change from the end-diastolic diameter. The range of possible errors in flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and nitroglycerin-mediated vasodilation that may result from ignoring cyclic variations in diameter was determined for each condition. True FMD, true nitroglycerin-mediated vasodilation, and the maximum and minimum values that could be erroneously calculated for FMD if timing was ignored all differed dramatically (p < 0.05). The range of apparent FMD values that could be measured was nearly three times the true FMD value. Ignoring temporal position within the cardiac cycle artifactually increased calculated FMD into the normal range, despite truly impaired FMD. Peak arterial dilation occurred before end-systole and greater baseline vessel compliance was associated with greater FMD. Brachial arterial diameters vary significantly throughout the cardiac cycle. The magnitude of this variation is similar to the arterial dilation induced by reactive hyperemia and nitroglycerin, making ECG-triggered imaging mandatory for accurate and reproducible clinical and research measurements of artery diameters and FMD. Measurement of diameters at end-diastole may be preferred to other time-points in the cardiac cycle.

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

4.4
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