4.1 Article

Phase-velocity cine magnetic resonance imaging measurement of pulsatile blood flow in children and young adults: In vitro and in vivo validation

期刊

PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 104-110

出版社

SPRINGER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s002469910014

关键词

magnetic resonance imaging; blood flow; cardiac output; pediatrics

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL007572] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantification of blood flow in vessels provides valuable information that aids management decisions in a variety of cardiac conditions. Current flow measurement techniques are often Limited by accuracy, time resolution, convenience, or anatomic localization, This study examined the accuracy of a commercially available phase-velocity cine magnetic resonance imaging (PVC MRI) technique to quantify flow rate in a pulsatile flow phantom. In addition, the equivalence of PVC MRI measurements of pulmonary and systemic flow was evaluated in children and adults without any pathologic shunt. Using a pulsatile flow phantom, volume flow rates measured by PVC MRI were compared to those by a transit-time ultrasound flowmeter over a range of flow rates (1.25-3.5 L/min, 13 trials). Close agreement was found between these techniques (y = 1.02x - 0.02, r = 0.99, Bland-Altman bias = -0.045 L/min, 95% limits of agreement = -0.19-0.10 L/min). Twenty subjects (median age 12.8 years, range 0.7-49 years) with no pathologic shunt underwent PVC MRI measurement of blood flow in the main pulmonary artery (Q(p)) and the ascending aorta (Q(s)). Data processing time for each location was 20 minutes. The Q(P)/Q(s) ratio closely approximated unity (mean = 0.99, SD = 0.10, range 0.85-1.19). Interobserver agreement was excellent (Bland-Altman bias = 0.09 L/min, 95% limits of agreement = 0.15-0.33 L/min), PVC MRI is an accurate technique to quantify pulsatile blood flow at a specific location. It can be used to noninvasively calculate Q(P) and Q(s) under normal flow conditions.

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

4.1
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