Circulation · 1993
Magnetic resonance jet velocity mapping in mitral and aortic valve stenosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kilner P J, Manzara C C, Mohiaddin R H, Pennell D J, Sutton M G, Firmin D N, Underwood S R, Longmore D B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance (MR) phase-shift velocity mapping is an established method for measurement of nonturbulent intravascular flow. Shortening the echo time of the MR sequence to 3.6 msec allowed application of the technique to turbulent jet flow. The objective of this study was validation of MR jet velocity mapping in patients with cardiac valve stenosis.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a 0.5-T Picker MR machine to measure peak poststenotic jet velocity in 15 consecutive patients recruited with known valve disease (six mitral stenosis, three of these restudied after valvoplasty, and 11 aortic stenosis). On the same day as the MR study, these patients underwent independent Doppler echocardiographic measurement of peak jet velocity. The results of 10 further MR investigations of aortic stenosis are also reported and compared with Doppler studies performed within 6 months. Of the 29 MR studies, 28 (97%) produced interpretable velocity maps, the one failure being attributed to misplacement of the imaging slice in a case of severe aortic stenosis. Agreement between MR and Doppler measurements of peak jet velocity in the recruited group was as follows: n = 18; range, 1.4-6.1 m/sec; mean, 3 m/sec; mean of differences (MR-Doppler), 0.23 m/sec; standard deviation of differences, 0.49 m/sec.
CONCLUSIONS: In vivo MR peak jet velocity measurements agree well with those made by Doppler ultrasound. The technique, which is not subject to restricted windows of access and has potential for further refinements, could contribute to improved evaluation of stenoses, especially at locations where ultrasonic access is limited.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a 0.5-T Picker MR machine to measure peak poststenotic jet velocity in 15 consecutive patients recruited with known valve disease (six mitral stenosis, three of these restudied after valvoplasty, and 11 aortic stenosis). On the same day as the MR study, these patients underwent independent Doppler echocardiographic measurement of peak jet velocity. The results of 10 further MR investigations of aortic stenosis are also reported and compared with Doppler studies performed within 6 months. Of the 29 MR studies, 28 (97%) produced interpretable velocity maps, the one failure being attributed to misplacement of the imaging slice in a case of severe aortic stenosis. Agreement between MR and Doppler measurements of peak jet velocity in the recruited group was as follows: n = 18; range, 1.4-6.1 m/sec; mean, 3 m/sec; mean of differences (MR-Doppler), 0.23 m/sec; standard deviation of differences, 0.49 m/sec.
CONCLUSIONS: In vivo MR peak jet velocity measurements agree well with those made by Doppler ultrasound. The technique, which is not subject to restricted windows of access and has potential for further refinements, could contribute to improved evaluation of stenoses, especially at locations where ultrasonic access is limited.