...
首页> 外文期刊>Pediatric radiology >Comparative imaging of differential pulmonary blood flow in patients with congenital heart disease: magnetic resonance imaging versus lung perfusion scintigraphy.
【24h】

Comparative imaging of differential pulmonary blood flow in patients with congenital heart disease: magnetic resonance imaging versus lung perfusion scintigraphy.

机译:先天性心脏病患者差异肺血流的比较成像:磁共振成像与肺灌注显像。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Lung perfusion scintigraphy is considered the gold standard to assess differential pulmonary blood flow while magnetic resonance (MR) has been shown to be an accurate alternative in some studies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the accuracy of phase contrast magnetic resonance (PC-MR) in measuring pulmonary blood flow ratio compared with lung perfusion scintigraphy in patients with complex pulmonary artery anatomy or pulmonary hypertension and to document reasons for discrepant results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 25 cases of congenital heart disease between January 2000 and 2003, in whom both techniques of assessing pulmonary blood flow were performed within a 6-month period without an interim surgical or transcatheter intervention. The study group included cases with branch pulmonary artery stenosis, intracardiac shunts, single ventricle circulation, pulmonary venous anomalies and conotruncal defects. The mean age at study was 5.7 years (range 0.33-12) with a mean weight of 20.3 kg (range 6.5-53.6). The two methods were compared using a Bland-Altman analysis, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated using the lung scan as the gold standard. Discrepant results were examined by reviewing the source images to elucidate reasons for error by MR. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis comparing right pulmonary artery (RPA) blood flow percentage, as measured by each modality, showed a mean difference of 1.43+/-9.8 (95% limits of agreement: -17.8, 20.6) with a correlation coefficient of r=0.84, P<0.0001. In six (24%) cases a large difference (>10%) was found with a mean difference between techniques of 17.9%. The reasons for discrepant results included MR artifacts, dephasing owing to turbulent flow, site of data acquisition and lobar lung collapse. CONCLUSION: When using PC-MR to assess pulmonary blood flow ratio, important technical errors occur in a significant proportion of patients who have abnormal pulmonary artery anatomy or pulmonary hypertension. If these technical errors are avoided, PC-MR is able to supply both anatomic and quantitative functional information in this patient population.
机译:背景:肺灌注闪烁显像术被认为是评估差异肺血流的金标准,而磁共振(MR)在某些研究中已被证明是一种准确的替代方法。目的:本研究的目的是评估相衬磁共振(PC-MR)与复杂的肺动脉解剖或肺动脉高压患者比较肺灌注显像与肺灌注显像的准确性,并记录结果差异的原因。材料与方法:我们确定了2000年1月至2003年之间的25例先天性心脏病病例,其中两种评估肺血流量的技术均在6个月内进行,没有进行临时的手术或经导管干预。该研究组包括分支肺动脉狭窄,心内分流,单心室循环,肺静脉异常和圆锥颈缺损的病例。研究的平均年龄为5.7岁(范围为0.33-12),平均体重为20.3 kg(范围为6.5-53.6)。使用Bland-Altman分析比较了这两种方法,并使用肺部扫描作为金标准计算了Pearson相关系数。通过检查源图像来检查不一致的结果,以阐明MR错误的原因。结果:按每种方式测量的右肺动脉(RPA)血流百分比比较的Bland-Altman分析显示,平均差异为1.43 +/- 9.8(一致同意的95%限值:-17.8、20.6),相关系数为r = 0.84,P <0.0001。在六(24%)个案例中,发现差异很大(> 10%),两种技术之间的平均差异为17.9%。结果不符的原因包括MR伪影,由于湍流引起的相移,数据采集的位置以及肺叶塌陷。结论:当使用PC-MR评估肺血流比率时,很大比例的肺动脉解剖结构异常或肺动脉高压患者会发生重要的技术错误。如果避免了这些技术错误,PC-MR可以在此患者人群中提供解剖和定量功能信息。

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