间隔存储与常规存储超声造影动态图像定量分析的差异

摘要

Objective To explore the difference between interval storage and continuous storage of dynamic imagines in contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) quantitative analysis. Methods Two CEUS were performed for each of fifteen participants using interval storage and continuous storage of dynamic images. A number of parameters were analyzed including rising time (RT), time to peak (TTP), mean transit time (MTT), maximum intensity (IMAX), and area under the curve (AUC). The disk usage and time consumpation were also compared for analysis. Results There were no differences in RT, TTP, MTT, IMAX, AUC between the two groups (t=1.028, 1.012, 0.558, 0.223, 0.556, P=0.322, 0.329, 0.586, 0.826, 0.587). There was significantly positive correlations between them (r=0.989, 0.992, 0.867, 0.865, 0.947, all P<0.05). The disk usage in interval storage group was about 1/3 of that in contiunous storage group. And the interval storage method could saved 25-30 min in each case. Conclusion Interval storage is worthy for further clinical application on the groud of its disk usage sparing and less time consumpation without compromising the image quality for analysis.%目的：探讨间隔存储与常规存储超声造影动态图像在定量分析方面的差异。方法2013年3至5月在广西医科大学第一附属医院行超声造影检查的15例参与者（10例肝细胞癌，2例局灶性结节增生，2例肝硬化，1例正常），均经手术和（或）穿刺活检病理和（或）临床确诊。对参与者分别进行常规存储、间隔（0.3 s）存储动态图像的2次超声造影，2次检查要求相同切面、相同时长。均用SonoLiver软件分析灌注参数：上升时间（RT）、峰值时间（TTP）、平均转换时间（MTT）、峰值强度（IMAX）、曲线下面积（AUC），并比较2种存储方法的磁盘占用空间、分析时耗。结果常规存储、间隔（0.3 s）存储分析特定区域RT、TTP、MTT、IMAX、AUC差异无统计学意义（t值为1.028、1.012、0.558、0.223、0.556，P值为0.322、0.329、0.586、0.826、0.587），两者相关性好（r值为0.989、0.992、0.867、0.865、0.947，P值均＜0.05）。间隔（0.3 s）存储图像占用空间为常规存储的1/3左右，且每例超声造影节省分析时耗25~30 min。结论间隔存储可得到与常规存储相同定量分析结果，且节省磁盘占用空间，减少分析时耗，值得临床中推广应用。