Stroke · 1994
Comparison of magnetic resonance volume flow rates, angiography, and carotid Dopplers. Preliminary results.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Levine R L, Turski P A, Holmes K A, Grist T M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We compared the results of conventional angiography, carotid Doppler, and magnetic resonance angiography volume flow rates to determine the clinical utility of volume flow rate assessment of blood flow to the anterior circulation in patients with carotid occlusive disease.
METHODS: From 11 symptomatic patients, a total of 22 extracranial carotid arteries were studied with all three techniques. The studies were independently read, and regression analysis was used to compare the measurements.
RESULTS: Carotid Doppler measurements of the distal extracranial carotid arteries were proportional to the inverse of the extracranial carotid volume flow rate (r = .53, R2 = 29%, P < .01), volume flow rates were proportional to the inverse of measured percent stenosis on angiography (r = .84, R2 = 71%, P < .01), and Dopplers were proportional to angiography (r = .94, R2 = 90%, P < .01). Symptomatic Doppler systolic velocity was significantly higher (P < .002), symptomatic measured stenosis was significantly higher (P < .002), and symptomatic volume flow rate was significantly lower (P < .01) than their respective asymptomatic-side values. These preliminary observations, however, may well change once a large data set, especially one in which more patients with high-grade carotid stenosis are included, is studied.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of carotid volume flow rates by magnetic resonance angiography quantifies flow reduction secondary to atherosclerotic occlusive disease. The easily obtained flow data add both documentation of arterial flow characteristics related to internal carotid stenosis and information regarding the adequacy of collateral pathways.
METHODS: From 11 symptomatic patients, a total of 22 extracranial carotid arteries were studied with all three techniques. The studies were independently read, and regression analysis was used to compare the measurements.
RESULTS: Carotid Doppler measurements of the distal extracranial carotid arteries were proportional to the inverse of the extracranial carotid volume flow rate (r = .53, R2 = 29%, P < .01), volume flow rates were proportional to the inverse of measured percent stenosis on angiography (r = .84, R2 = 71%, P < .01), and Dopplers were proportional to angiography (r = .94, R2 = 90%, P < .01). Symptomatic Doppler systolic velocity was significantly higher (P < .002), symptomatic measured stenosis was significantly higher (P < .002), and symptomatic volume flow rate was significantly lower (P < .01) than their respective asymptomatic-side values. These preliminary observations, however, may well change once a large data set, especially one in which more patients with high-grade carotid stenosis are included, is studied.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of carotid volume flow rates by magnetic resonance angiography quantifies flow reduction secondary to atherosclerotic occlusive disease. The easily obtained flow data add both documentation of arterial flow characteristics related to internal carotid stenosis and information regarding the adequacy of collateral pathways.