Literature DB >> 21031512

Improved aortic pulse wave velocity assessment from multislice two-directional in-plane velocity-encoded magnetic resonance imaging.

Jos J M Westenberg1, Albert de Roos, Heynric B Grotenhuis, Paul Steendijk, Dennis Hendriksen, Pieter J van den Boogaard, Rob J van der Geest, Jeroen J Bax, J Wouter Jukema, Johan H C Reiber.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) assessment by in-plane velocity-encoded magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 14 patients selected for cardiac catheterization on suspicion of coronary artery disease and 15 healthy volunteers, PWV was assessed with multislice two-directional in-plane velocity-encoded MRI (PWV(i.p.)) and compared with conventionally assessed PWV from multisite one-directional through-plane velocity-encoded MRI (PWV(t.p.)). In patients, PWV was also obtained from intraarterially acquired pressure-time curves (PWV(pressure)), which is considered the gold standard reference method. In volunteers, PWV(i.p.) and PWV(t.p.) were obtained in duplicate in the same examination to test reproducibility.
RESULTS: In patients, PWV(i.p.) showed stronger correlation and similar variation with PWV(pressure) than PWV(t.p.) (Pearson correlation r = 0.75 vs. r = 0.58, and coefficient of variation [COV] = 10% vs. COV = 12%, respectively). In volunteers, repeated PWV(i.p.) assessment showed stronger correlation and less variation than repeated PWV(t.p.) (proximal aorta: r = 0.97 and COV = 10% vs. r = 0.69 and COV = 17%; distal aorta: r = 0.94 and COV = 12% vs. r = 0.90 and COV = 16%; total aorta: r = 0.97 and COV = 7% vs. r = 0.90 and COV = 13%).
CONCLUSION: PWV(i.p.) is an improvement over conventional PWV(t.p.) by showing higher agreement as compared to the gold standard (PWV(pressure)) and higher reproducibility for repeated MRI assessment.
© 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21031512     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22359

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  21 in total

1.  Clinical value of pulse wave velocity: a promising marker for arterial stiffness.

Authors:  R P Amier; R Nijveldt
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 2.380

2.  Coupling of vessel wall morphology and function in the aorta and the carotid artery: an evaluation with MRI.

Authors:  Eleanore S J Kröner; Hildo J Lamb; Hans-Marc J Siebelink; Hein Putter; Rob J van der Geest; Ernst E van der Wall; Albert de Roos; Jos J M Westenberg
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  Coupling between MRI-assessed regional aortic pulse wave velocity and diameters in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm: a feasibility study.

Authors:  E S J Kröner; J J M Westenberg; L J M Kroft; N J Brouwer; P J van den Boogaard; A J H A Scholte
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 4.  Noninvasive Imaging of Flow and Vascular Function in Disease of the Aorta.

Authors:  Matthew C Whitlock; W Gregory Hundley
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-09

Review 5.  Review of MRI-based measurements of pulse wave velocity: a biomarker of arterial stiffness.

Authors:  Andrew L Wentland; Thomas M Grist; Oliver Wieben
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2014-04

6.  Consistency of aortic distensibility and pulse wave velocity estimates with respect to the Bramwell-Hill theoretical model: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study.

Authors:  Anas Dogui; Nadjia Kachenoura; Frédérique Frouin; Muriel Lefort; Alain De Cesare; Elie Mousseaux; Alain Herment
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 5.364

7.  Non-triggered quantification of central and peripheral pulse-wave velocity.

Authors:  Michael C Langham; Cheng Li; Felix W Wehrli
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.364

8.  Bramwell-Hill modeling for local aortic pulse wave velocity estimation: a validation study with velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance and invasive pressure assessment.

Authors:  Jos J M Westenberg; Eveline P van Poelgeest; Paul Steendijk; Heynric B Grotenhuis; J W Jukema; Albert de Roos
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 9.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in Marfan syndrome.

Authors:  Helen Dormand; Raad H Mohiaddin
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 5.364

10.  Quantitative CMR markers of impaired vascular reactivity associated with age and peripheral artery disease.

Authors:  Michael C Langham; Erin K Englund; Emile R Mohler; Cheng Li; Zachary B Rodgers; Thomas F Floyd; Felix W Wehrli
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 5.364

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.