Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021
The value of a shorter-delay arterial spin labeling protocol for detecting cerebrovascular impairment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhuang Caiyu, Poublanc Julien, Mcketton Larissa, Venkatraghavan Lakshmikumar, Sobczyk Olivia, Duffin James, Crawley Adrian P, Fisher Joseph A, Wu Renhua, Mikulis David J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) obtained from arterial spin labeling (ASL) using different post labeling delays (PLD).
METHODS: Forty-two patients with steno-occlusive diseases and impaired CVR were divided into two groups, one scanned with a 1.5-second (1.5-s) and the other with a 2.5-second (2.5-s) PLD ASL protocol. For all patients, a region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the CVR impairment. This affected ROI was then left-right flipped across the brain midline to obtain the control ROI. For both groups, the difference in grey matter CVR between affected and control ROI was first tested to confirm significance. The average grey matter CBF of affected and control ROIs were then compared. The same analysis method was used to compare affected and control hemispheres.
RESULTS: In both groups of 1.5-s and 2.5-s PLD, CVR values in the affected ROI (-0.049±0.055 and -0.042±0.074%/mmHg, respectively) were significantly lower compared to that in the control ROI (0.152±0.054 and 0.152±0.053%/mmHg, respectively, P<0.0001). In the group with the 1.5-s PLD, CBF in the affected ROI (37.62±11.37 mL/100 g/min) was significantly lower compared to CBF in the control ROI (44.13±11.58 mL/100 g/min, P<0.05). However, in the group with the 2.5-s PLD, no significant differences could be seen between CBF in the affected ROI (40.50±14.82 mL/100 g/min) and CBF in the control ROI (39.68±12.49 mL/100 g/min, P=0.73). In the hemisphere-based analysis, CBF was significantly lower in the affected side than in the control side for the group with the 1.5-s PLD (P<0.05) when CVR was impaired (P<0.0001), but not for the group with the 2.5-s PLD (P=0.49).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study reveals and highlights the value of a shorter-PLD ASL protocol, which is able to reflect CVR impairment. At the same time, we offer a better understanding of the relationship between BOLD CVR and CBF obtained from ASL.
METHODS: Forty-two patients with steno-occlusive diseases and impaired CVR were divided into two groups, one scanned with a 1.5-second (1.5-s) and the other with a 2.5-second (2.5-s) PLD ASL protocol. For all patients, a region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the CVR impairment. This affected ROI was then left-right flipped across the brain midline to obtain the control ROI. For both groups, the difference in grey matter CVR between affected and control ROI was first tested to confirm significance. The average grey matter CBF of affected and control ROIs were then compared. The same analysis method was used to compare affected and control hemispheres.
RESULTS: In both groups of 1.5-s and 2.5-s PLD, CVR values in the affected ROI (-0.049±0.055 and -0.042±0.074%/mmHg, respectively) were significantly lower compared to that in the control ROI (0.152±0.054 and 0.152±0.053%/mmHg, respectively, P<0.0001). In the group with the 1.5-s PLD, CBF in the affected ROI (37.62±11.37 mL/100 g/min) was significantly lower compared to CBF in the control ROI (44.13±11.58 mL/100 g/min, P<0.05). However, in the group with the 2.5-s PLD, no significant differences could be seen between CBF in the affected ROI (40.50±14.82 mL/100 g/min) and CBF in the control ROI (39.68±12.49 mL/100 g/min, P=0.73). In the hemisphere-based analysis, CBF was significantly lower in the affected side than in the control side for the group with the 1.5-s PLD (P<0.05) when CVR was impaired (P<0.0001), but not for the group with the 2.5-s PLD (P=0.49).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study reveals and highlights the value of a shorter-PLD ASL protocol, which is able to reflect CVR impairment. At the same time, we offer a better understanding of the relationship between BOLD CVR and CBF obtained from ASL.