PURPOSE: To evaluate the reproducibility of a new multisite axial pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurement technique that makes use of 2D PCMR data and cross-correlation analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PWV was estimated with MRI in 13 healthy volunteers by a transit-time technique (TT), a multisite technique utilizing 1D PCMR data in the descending aorta (FOOT), and a new multisite axial technique that uses 2D PCMR data over the ascending, transverse, and descending sections of the aorta (2D-XC). RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between PWV measurements values measured by the three techniques. However, 2D-XC displayed significantly better intertest reproducibility than either the TT or FOOT methodologies. Average percent difference between scans: TT: 15.8% +/- 13.4%, FOOT: 21.3% +/- 16.9%, 2D-XC: 7.72% +/- 4.73%. P = 0.02 for both 2D-XC/TT comparison and 2D-XC/FOOT comparison. CONCLUSION: 2D-XC is a more reproducible method than either the established TT or FOOT methods to estimate the aortic PWV. 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reproducibility of a new multisite axial pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurement technique that makes use of 2D PCMR data and cross-correlation analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PWV was estimated with MRI in 13 healthy volunteers by a transit-time technique (TT), a multisite technique utilizing 1D PCMR data in the descending aorta (FOOT), and a new multisite axial technique that uses 2D PCMR data over the ascending, transverse, and descending sections of the aorta (2D-XC). RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between PWV measurements values measured by the three techniques. However, 2D-XC displayed significantly better intertest reproducibility than either the TT or FOOT methodologies. Average percent difference between scans: TT: 15.8% +/- 13.4%, FOOT: 21.3% +/- 16.9%, 2D-XC: 7.72% +/- 4.73%. P = 0.02 for both 2D-XC/TT comparison and 2D-XC/FOOT comparison. CONCLUSION: 2D-XC is a more reproducible method than either the established TT or FOOT methods to estimate the aortic PWV. 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc
Authors: Jonathan D Suever; John Oshinski; Enrique Rojas-Campos; David Huneycutt; Francesca Cardarelli; Arthur E Stillman; Paolo Raggi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: El-Sayed H Ibrahim; Kevin R Johnson; Alan B Miller; Jean M Shaffer; Richard D White Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Arunark Kolipaka; Venkata Sita Priyanka Illapani; William Kenyhercz; Joshua D Dowell; Michael R Go; Jean E Starr; Patrick S Vaccaro; Richard D White Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Andrew L Wentland; Oliver Wieben; Chris J François; Christina Boncyk; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Kevin M Johnson; Thomas M Grist; Alex Frydrychowicz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yoshiaki Ohyama; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Chikara Noda; Jang-Young Kim; Yutaka Tanami; Gisela Teixido-Tura; Atul R Chugh; Alban Redheuil; Chia-Ying Liu; Colin O Wu; W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; Eliseo Guallar; Joao A C Lima Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Mabel Toribio; Magid Awadalla; Madeline Cetlin; Evelynne S Fulda; Takara L Stanley; Zsofia D Drobni; Lidia S Szczepaniak; Michael D Nelson; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Tricia H Burdo; Tomas G Neilan; Markella V Zanni Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.731