...
首页> 外文期刊>Hypertension research: Official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension >Retinal microvascular diameter, a hypertension-related trait, in ECG-gated vs. non-gated images analyzed by IVAN and SIVA
【24h】

Retinal microvascular diameter, a hypertension-related trait, in ECG-gated vs. non-gated images analyzed by IVAN and SIVA

机译:通过IVAN和SIVA分析的ECG门控图像和非门控图像中的视网膜微血管直径(一种与高血压相关的特征)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The diameters of the retinal microvasculature reflect intermediate target organ damage and predict adverse health outcomes. In view of the pulsatility of the cerebral blood flow and refinement of software used for off-line analysis, we assessed the repeatability of retinal microvascular diameters in ECG-gated vs. non-gated images using nonmydriatic retinal photographs (Canon Cr-DGi visualization system) postprocessed by IVAN (Vasculomatic ala Nicola, version 1.1) or SIVA (Singapore I Vessel Assessment, version 3.6). Using these algorithms, we determined the central retinal arteriolar (CRAE) and venular (CRVE) equivalents and their ratio (arteriole-to-venule ratio (AVR)). The estimates of CRAE (mean, 158.5 mu m), CRVE (222.5 mu m) and AVR (0.71) in 10 volunteers were unaffected (P >= 0.059) by ECG gating. We assessed intragrader repeatability by the Bland and Altman approach in 30 participants with non-gated images and 30 with ECG-gated photographs. Repeatability, which was expressed as the percentage of near maximal variability (4-s.d. range), did not improve with ECG gating. Using SIVA, CRAE and CRVE were systematically larger (P <= 0.031), and the AVR estimates were similar (P >= 0.15) compared with IVAN. The differences (IVAN-SIVA) averaged -5.4 mu m for CRAE, -3.9 mu m for CRVE and -0.012 for AVR in the non-gated images and -3.3 mu m, -6.9 mu m and 0.006, respectively, in the ECG-gated photographs. In conclusion, ECG gating does not affect estimates of the retinal microvascular diameters or improve intragrader repeatability. SIVA yields slightly but significantly larger estimates of the retinal arteriolar and venular diameters. Combining historical readings analyzed by IVAN with more recent readings by SIVA is possible only for AVR and is not recommended for either CRAE or CRVE.
机译:视网膜微脉管系统的直径反映了目标靶器官的中间损害并预测了不良的健康结果。鉴于脑血流的搏动性和用于离线分析的软件的完善,我们使用非散瞳性视网膜照片(Canon Cr-DGi可视化系统)评估了ECG门控和非门控图像中视网膜微血管直径的可重复性)由IVAN(Vasculomatic ala Nicola,版本1.1)或SIVA(新加坡I船舶评估,版本3.6)后处理。使用这些算法,我们确定了视网膜中央小动脉(CRAE)和静脉(CRVE)的当量及其比率(小动脉与小静脉比率(AVR))。心电门控对10名志愿者的CRAE(平均158.5微米),CRVE(222.5微米)和AVR(0.71)的估计未受影响(P> = 0.059)。我们通过Bland和Altman方法评估了30位非门控图像参与者和30位心电图门控照片参与者的分级机可重复性。重复性表示为接近最大变异性(4-s.d。范围)的百分比,但使用ECG门控并没有改善。使用SIVA时,CRAE和CRVE与IVAN相比有系统地更大(P <= 0.031),并且AVR估算值相似(P> = 0.15)。非门控图像中CRAE的差异(IVAN-SIVA)平均为-5.4μm,CRVE的平均差异为-3.9μm,AVR的平均差异为-0.012,ECG中的差异分别为-3.3μm,-6.9μm和0.006。门照片。总之,心电门控不会影响视网膜微血管直径的估计或改善分级器的可重复性。 SIVA产生的视网膜小动脉和小静脉直径的估计值稍大但明显更大。仅对AVR可以将IVAN分析的历史读数与SIVA的最新读数结合起来,而对于CRAE或CRVE则不建议使用。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号