| Literature DB >> 29490004 |
Fang Xie1, Wen-Bo Wan1, Xiang Fei1, Ming-Bo Zhang1, Yan Zhang1, Hong-Wei Wang1, Jie Tang1, Wen-Bo Tang1, Yu-Kun Luo1.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and repeatability of the flash-replenishment method in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) perfusion imaging and assess quantitatively microvascular perfusion in the liver. Twenty healthy New Zealand rabbits were submitted to CEUS perfusion imaging with continuous intravenous infusion. Using flash-replenishment kinetics, the dynamic process of depletion and refilling of microbubble contrast agent was recorded. The hepatic microvascular perfusion parameters were calculated, including region of interest, peak intensity (PI), area under the curve (AUC), and hepatic artery to vein transit time (HA-HVTT). A consistency test was performed for multiple measurements by the same operator and blind measurements by two different operators. The hepatic perfusion imaging of 3×108 bubbles/min had minimal error and the best imaging effect and repeatability. The variability of the perfusion parameter measured at 3 cm depth under the liver capsule was at a minimum with coefficient of variation of 3.9%. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of measurements taken by the same operator was 0.985, (95% confidence interval, CI=0.927-0.998). Measurements taken by two operators had good consistency and reliability, with the ICC of 0.948 (95%CI=0.853-0.982). The PI and AUC of liver parenchyma after reperfusion were lower than before blocking; and HA-HVTT was significantly longer than before blocking (P<0.05). The flash-replenishment method in CEUS perfusion imaging showed good stability and repeatability, which provide a valuable experimental basis for the quantitative assessment of hepatic microvascular perfusion in clinical practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29490004 PMCID: PMC5856433 DOI: 10.1590/1414-431x20177058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res ISSN: 0100-879X Impact factor: 2.590
Figure 1.Pringle's maneuver. A 6-cm midline incision was carried out (A) and the porta hepatis was exposed (B). The hepatic artery proper, common hepatic duct and hepatic portal vein were blocked using three vascular clips for 60 min (C) followed by 120-min reperfusion (D).
Figure 2.Hepatic perfusion imaging of different contrast agent perfusion rates. The 3×108 bubbles/min (B) and 4×108 bubbles/min (C) perfusion rates showed better enhancement than 2×108 bubbles/min (A). Additional tests showed that the 3×108 bubbles/min perfusion rate was superior to the 4×108 bubbles/min perfusion rate in image enhancement and repeatability.
Figure 3.Hepatic perfusion parameter (peak intensity) error bars of different contrast agent perfusion rates. Each bar represents the average 95%CI.
Comparison of peak intensity (PI) at different depths beneath the liver capsule.
| Depth | PI (dB) |
| P |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 cm | 3.36±1.02 | 66.037 | <0.001 |
| 3 cm | 9.15±0.36 | ||
| 4 cm | 6.49±0.86 |
Data are reported as means±SD.
P<0.001, relative to the 2 cm depth from the liver capsule;
P<0.001, relative to the 4 cm depth from the liver capsule (ANOVA).
Figure 4.Hepatic perfusion time-intensity curves at different regions of interest positions at a depth of 3 cm from the liver capsule. The green square and the green curve denote position a. The red square and the red curve denote position b. The two positions were not significantly different in peak intensity (P=0.266, t-test).
Comparison of peak intensity (PI) at different regions of interest positions at a depth of 3 cm from the liver capsule.
| Position | PI (dB) |
| P |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | 8.84±1.06 | 1.214 | 0.266 |
| b | 8.16±0.66 |
Data are reported as means±SD. Student’s t-test was used for statistical analysis.
Figure 5.HE staining of liver tissue. The normal hepatocytes are well arranged with centered nuclei, sharp nuclear membrane and red-stained cytoplasm (A, B). After the ischemic/reperfusion injury, the hepatocytes are swollen and the hepatic cords are disorganized (arrow in C). The cytoplasm is lightly stained with vacuoles (arrow in D).
Figure 6.Hepatic perfusion time-intensity curves before blocking (A) and after reperfusion 120 min (B).
Comparison of hepatic perfusion parameters before blocking and after reperfusion.
| Group | PI (db) | AUC (db s) | HA-HVTT (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before blocking | 16.82±1.69 | 305.37±33.67 | 15.42±1.04 |
| After reperfusion | 8.03±0.52 | 96.99±11.90 | 23.56±1.78 |
|
| 15.734 | 18.452 | 12.493 |
| P | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Data are reported as means±SD. Student’s t-test was used for statistical analysis. PI: peak intensity; AUC: area under the curve; HA-HVTT: hepatic artery to vein transit time.