| Literature DB >> 23870734 |
Roy Jogiya, Markus Makowski, Alkystsis Phinikaridou, Ashish S Patel, Christian Jansen, Niloufar Zarinabad, Amedeo Chiribiri, Rene Botnar, Eike Nagel, Sebastian Kozerke, Sven Plein.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic first pass contrast-enhanced myocardial perfusion is the standard CMR method for the estimation of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and MBF reserve in man, but it is challenging in rodents because of the high temporal and spatial resolution requirements. Hyperemic first pass myocardial perfusion CMR during vasodilator stress in mice has not been reported.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23870734 PMCID: PMC3750232 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-62
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Series of dynamic images after contrast bolus injection (0.1 mmol/kg body weight Gd-DTPA) in a short axis section of a mouse. Spatial resolution was 0.2 x 0.2 mm2 (reconstructed to 0.13 × 0.13 mm2). Images demonstrate the baseline scan (a), as well as the passage of the contrast agent in the RV (b), LV (c), and in the myocardium (d).
Figure 2Mean SI/phase profile from five mice at rest and stress. The different color codes represents the passage of the contrast agent (CA) within the LV and myocardial cavity.
Figure 3Ladder plots demonstrating the increase in MBF by CMR between rest and dipyridamole stress.
MR derived measurements of signal intensity (SI) and perfusion values
| 115 ± 24 | 2220 ± 412 | 18.30 | 81 ± 20 | 945 ± 210 | 10.67 | 9.2 | 2.71 | ||
| | 113 ± 27 | 2199 ± 460 | 18.46 | 116 ± 26 | 650 ± 144 | 4.60 | 3.4 | | |
| 170 ± 36 | 1780 ± 330 | 9.47 | 146 ± 29 | 1021 ± 243 | 5.99 | 8.7 | 2.12 | ||
| | 159 ± 29 | 1602 ± 313 | 9.08 | 111 ± 22 | 440 ± 97 | 2.96 | 4.1 | | |
| 83 ± 18 | 1690 ± 331 | 19.36 | 66 ± 15 | 580 ± 106 | 7.79 | 12.5 | 2.98 | ||
| | 138 ± 26 | 1637 ± 362 | 10.86 | 125 ± 26 | 490 ± 99 | 2.92 | 4.2 | | |
| 137 ± 35 | 1777 ± 367 | 11.97 | 100 ± 23 | 704 ± 142 | 6.04 | 6.2 | 1.59 | ||
| | 97 ± 26 | 1616 ± 369 | 15.66 | 122 ± 27 | 520 ± 102 | 3.26 | 3.9 | | |
| 84 ± 19 | 1804 ± 391 | 20.48 | 64 ± 16 | 684 ± 121 | 9.69 | 11.6 | 2.42 | ||
| | 138 ± 22 | 1832 ± 393 | 12.28 | 125 ± 23 | 489 ± 94 | 2.91 | 4.8 | | |
| 118 ± 37 | 1854 ± 209 | 15.92 ± 4.89 | 91 ± 34 | 787 ± 187 | 8.04 ± 2.12 | 9.64 ± 2.5 | 2.36 ± 0.54 | ||
| 129 ± 24 | 1777 ± 254 | 13.27 ± 3.78 | 120 ± 6 | 518 ± 79 | 3.33 ± 0.72 | 4.08 ± 0.5 |
* denotes which scan was performed first.
LV Left ventricle.
AIF Arterial input function.
MBF Myocardial blood flow.
MPR Myocardial perfusion reserve.
Figure 4Confocal microscopy images. a. confocal images at stress, b. confocal images at rest.
Figure 5Absolute number of microspheres counted using confocal microscopy at stress and rest using sectioned mid ventricular slices.
Figure 6Bland-Altman images. a. Bland Altman analysis of MPR (CMR-Confocal Microscopy) b. Band Altman analysis of MPR (CMR-Flow Cytometry).
Figure 7Histogram showing the number of stress (blue) vs rest (red) microspheres in a sample of remaining myocardium showing a relative increased detection of stress to rest microspheres.
Figure 8Comparison of the different methods (confocal microscopy, MR and flow cytometry) of assessing perfusion reserve.