| Literature DB >> 27722086 |
Jackie Leung1, James Duffin2, Joseph A Fisher2, Andrea Kassner3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) measures the ability of cerebral blood vessels to change their diameter and, hence, their capacity to regulate regional blood flow in the brain. High resolution quantitative maps of CVR can be produced using blood-oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in combination with a carbon dioxide stimulus, and these maps have become a useful tool in the clinical evaluation of cerebrovascular disorders. However, conventional CVR analysis does not fully characterize the BOLD response to a stimulus as certain regions of the brain are slower to react to the stimulus than others, especially in disease. Transfer function analysis (TFA) is an alternative technique that can account for dynamic temporal relations between signals and has recently been adapted for CVR computation. We investigated the application of TFA in data on children with sickle cell disease (SCD) and healthy controls, and compared them to results derived from conventional CVR analysis.Entities:
Keywords: BOLD MRI; Cerebrovascular reactivity; Hypercapnia; Sickle cell disease; Temporal lag; Transfer function analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27722086 PMCID: PMC5048082 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.09.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1a) The targeted end-tidal values of the CVR protocol shown in grey, and the corresponding sampled PetCO2 and PetO2 waveforms for a single subject are overlaid in red and blue, respectively. b) Examples of the BOLD response to CO2 step change for an SCD patient and a healthy control subject. The BOLD signal was averaged over the entire grey matter (black line) and white matter (grey line) and plotted over time. A low pass filter was performed on the data to reduce signal fluctuations due to background and physiological noise. The blue shaded region represents the periods of normocapnia, and the orange shaded region indicates the administration of the hypercapnic stimulus. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2Representative slices from a CVRConv, CVRGain, and Phase map for a) a 11 year old female with SCD and b) a healthy 12 year old female control subject.
Comparison of CVRConv and CVRGain in grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) within SCD and Control groups. The ratio of CVR between WM and GM is also included to show that transfer function analysis has a significantly greater effect in the WM than GM for SCD patients. Values expressed as mean CVR ± standard deviation in units of %ΔBOLD/mmHg.
| SCD patients | Healthy controls | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVRConv | CVRGain | CVRConv | CVRGain | |||
| GM | 0.098 ± 0.034 | 0.142 ± 0.054 | 4.48 × 10− 7 | 0.188 ± 0.052 | 0.263 ± 0.049 | 6.54 × 10− 8 |
| WM | 0.068 ± 0.023 | 0.106 ± 0.033 | 1.40 × 10− 11 | 0.116 ± 0.029 | 0.162 ± 0.028 | 7.08 × 10− 9 |
| WM/GM | 0.705 ± 0.122 | 0.796 ± 0.237 | 7.21 × 10− 3 | 0.659 ± 0.083 | 0.653 ± 0.085 | 0.469 |
Comparison of average Phase in WM and GM between SCD patients and healthy controls. Negative Phase indicates that the BOLD signal lags behind the CO2 waveform. Values are expressed as mean Phase ± standard deviation in units of radians.
| Phase | SCD patients | Healthy controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GM | − 0.387 ± 0.142 | − 0.390 ± 0.121 | 0.907 |
| WM | − 0.525 ± 0.173 | − 0.485 ± 0.139 | 0.248 |
| WM - GM | − 0.138 ± 0.137 | − 0.095 ± 0.101 | 0.107 |
Fig. 3Scatter plot showing the non-linear relation when comparing the difference between WM and GM. ΔPhase is calculated as the mean Phase difference between the WM and GM of each subject. The GM/WM ratio of the CVR increase due to TFA (CVRGain/CVRConv) is plotted along the x-axis.
Fig. 4Plot of mean CVRGain versus CVRConv in the a) GM and b) WM. Subject data points are identified as either Patients (■) or Controls (◊). Linear trend lines have been added in black to show differences in slope between the Patient and Control group.
Linear fit parameters (slope ± standard deviation) of CVRGain versus CVRConv. The p-values indicating the significance of each correlation as well as the difference between slopes are provided.
| SCD patients | Healthy controls | Change in slope | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slope | Slope | ||||
| GM | 1.314 ± 0.103 | 4.31 × 10− 19 | 0.748 ± 0.108 | 7.40 × 10− 8 | 1.38 × 10− 4 |
| WM | 1.173 ± 0.103 | 1.25 × 10− 16 | 0.707 ± 0.116 | 8.09 × 10− 7 | 3.46 × 10− 3 |
Fig. 5Scatter plots demonstrating the relation between Phase and the CVRGain/CVRConv ratio in the a) GM and b) WM. Subject data points are identified as either Patients (■) or Controls (◊). In both plots, the effect of TFA on CVR estimates is linearly correlated with the Phase lag detected by TFA.