首页> 外文期刊>Journal of neuroimaging >Volume flow rate of common carotid artery measured by Doppler method and Color Velocity Imaging Quantification (CVI-Q).
【24h】

Volume flow rate of common carotid artery measured by Doppler method and Color Velocity Imaging Quantification (CVI-Q).

机译:通过多普勒法和色速成像定量法(CVI-Q)测量的颈总动脉体积流量。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Common carotid artery (CCA) volume flow rate (VFR) is clinically useful for study of cerebrovascular disease. Color Velocity Imaging Quantification (CVI-Q; Philips Ultrasound International, Irvine, CA), previously reported as accurate and reliable, tracks the flow lumen over the cardiac cycle, as well as mean spatial velocity, which is multiplied by vessel area to obtain VFR. VFR can also be obtained by Doppler sampling for mean velocity, and vessel area based on static B-mode lumen diameter. We compared CCA VFR by CVI-Q and Doppler method (DM), since knowledge of how they compare is crucial when both are used clinically. METHOD: We prospectively studied patients having clinical carotid duplex exams and healthy controls. All had CCA VFR measured by both methods in the same exam session. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were reviewed. CCA VFR by CVI-Q in those without ICA stenosis was 337 +/- 96 mL/m, and by DM 359 +/- 130 mL/m; P = .33. There was no difference between methods for 50-75% or 75-95% ICA stenosis. In 7 patients with ICA occlusion, and 3 with 95-99% stenosis, VFR was higher by DM than by CVI-Q (Occlusion: 125 vs 58 mL/m, P = .007; 95-99%: 152 vs 63 mL/m, P = .038). There was no statistically significant difference between methods for measurement of the ratio of VFR between right and left CCA. CONCLUSION: In patients with 0-95% ICA stenosis, VFR by CVI-Q and DM showed no difference. For 95-100% ICA stenosis the methods differ; with higher VFR by DM. Side-to-side VFR ratios remain constant, irrespective of VFR method, and can still provide clinically useful information.
机译:背景:颈总动脉(CCA)体积流速(VFR)在临床上可用于研究脑血管疾病。彩色速度成像定量分析(CVI-Q;飞利浦超声国际公司,加利福尼亚州欧文)先前被报道为准确可靠,它跟踪了整个心动周期的血流腔以及平均空间速度,然后将其乘以血管面积以获得VFR。 。 VFR也可以通过多普勒采样获得平均速度,并基于静态B型管腔直径获得血管面积。我们通过CVI-Q和多普勒方法(DM)对CCA VFR进行了比较,因为当两种方法都用于临床时,如何比较它们的知识至关重要。方法:我们前瞻性研究了经过临床颈动脉双工检查和健康对照的患者。所有患者的CCA VFR均在同一次考试中通过两种方法测得。结果:审查了三十四项研究。没有ICA狭窄的患者的CVI-Q的CCA VFR为337 +/- 96 mL / m,而DM 359 +/- 130 mL / m。 P = 0.33。 ICA狭窄程度为50-75%或75-95%的方法之间没有差异。在7例ICA闭塞患者和3例狭窄率在95-99%的患者中,DM的VFR高于CVI-Q(阻塞:125 vs 58 mL / m,P = .007; 95-99%:152 vs 63 mL / m,P = .038)。左右CCA之间的VFR比率的测量方法之间没有统计学上的显着差异。结论:ICA狭窄0-95%的患者,CVI-Q和DM的VFR无差异。对于95-100%的ICA狭窄,方法有所不同。 DM具有更高的VFR。左右VFR比率保持不变,而与VFR方法无关,并且仍然可以提供临床有用的信息。

著录项

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