| Literature DB >> 30602387 |
Ashkan H Behzadi1, Neil M Khilnani1, Weiguo Zhang1, Amanda J Bares1,2, Srikanth R Boddu1, Robert J Min1, Martin R Prince3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the effect of hydration as well as prone versus supine positioning on the pelvic veins during cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) venography.Entities:
Keywords: Common femoral vein; Deep venous thrombosis; Hydration; Iliac vein; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positioning
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30602387 PMCID: PMC6317255 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-018-0503-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Patient transverse images of common femoral veins superior to arterial bifurcation. Common femoral veins appear large in the prone position (top pane) compared to veins in the supine position (bottom pane). Common femoral veins indicated by white arrowhead
Demographic data of MR venography patients
| Patients’ Demographic Data | |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 50.4 (24–75)a |
| Gender(female/male) | 16/17 |
| Indications for MR Venography | |
| Varicosities/venous insufficiency | 6 |
| Suspected DVT | 20 |
| Suspected venous anomaly | 7 |
| Weight (kg) | 82.5 ± 17.4 |
arange
Common Femoral Vein Area (mm2) in supine vs. prone positioning and dehydration vs. hydration status in 8 volunteers
| Patient Position | Common Femoral Vein Area (mm2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dehydrated | Hydrated | ||
| Supine | 59 ± 21 | 78 ± 28 | 0.001 |
| Prone | 83 ± 35 | 123 ± 44 | 0.002 |
| 0.02 | 0.0007 | ||
Fig. 2Prone vs. Supine scan positions in dehydrated and hydrated healthy subject. Common femoral veins (white arrows) appear larger in the prone position (top images) when compared to supine position (bottom images). Veins are noticeably smaller when the volunteer was dehydrated (left images) versus hydrated (right images)
Fig. 3Left down and right down position in dehydrated and hydrated healthy subject. Common femoral veins (white arrows) appear significantly larger when dependent vs. anti-dependent in the volunteer in both left down (top left image) and right down (top middle image) positions. This is especially clear when magnified (bottom images; A = anti-dependent, D = dependent), where the anti-dependent vein appears nearly collapsed. Vein size did not appear larger when the subject was hydrated (right images)
Common Femoral Vein Area (mm2) in decubitus dependent vs. ante-decubitus positions for dehydration vs. hydration status in 8 volunteers
| Decubitus Position | Common Femoral Vein Area (mm2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dehydrated | Hydrated | ||
| Dependent | 134 ± 36 | 135 ± 32 | 0.95 |
| Ante-dependent | 29 ± 17 | 36 ± 22 | 0.27 |
| < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | ||
Common Iliac Vein Volume (cm3) in supine vs. prone positioning with dehydration vs. hydration in 8 volunteers
| Patient Position | Common Iliac Vein Volume (cm3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dehydrated | Hydrated | ||
| Supine | 4.6 ± 1.8 | 5.8 ± 2.1 | <0.01 |
| Prone | 5.4 ± 1.9 | 6.7± 2.1 | <0.01 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
External Iliac Vein Volume (cm3) in supine vs. prone positioning with dehydration vs. hydration in 8 volunteers
| Patient Position | External Iliac Vein Volume (cm3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dehydrated | Hydrated | ||
| Supine | 4.5 ± 1.9 | 5.4 ± 2.0 | <0.01 |
| Prone | 5.8 ± 1.9 | 6.3 ± 1.9 | <0.01 |
| <0.01 | <0.01 | ||
Fig. 4Prone hydrated (top) vs. Supine dehydrated (bottom) scan positions for common (left) and external (right) iliac veins in a healthy subject. Common iliac veins (white arrows) are larger in the hydrated/prone position (right, top image) when compared to dehydrated/supine position (right, bottom image). External iliac veins (right images, white arrows) are larger in the hydrated and prone position (top right) when compared to dehydrated and supine position (bottom right)