MR相位对比法和形态体积分析法评价心室功能的比较研究

目的探讨相位对比法MR和形态体积分析法MR成像技术在评价心室功能中的临床应用价值。方法应用相位对比法MR(phasecontrastmagneticresonanceimaging,PCMRI)和形态体积分析法电影MRI(stereologicalcinemagneticresonanceimaging,SCMRI)分别对12例健康成年人和46例心脏病患者进行检查。首先应用SCMRI行心脏左、右室短轴电影成像,分别描记左、右室心内、外膜界面,测出左右心室舒张末期容量(EDV)、收缩末期容量(ESV)、每搏输出量(SV)、射血分数(EF)等指标;再应用PCMRI和流量分析软件分别在主动脉瓣上和肺动脉瓣上水平测得1个心动周期内的前向血流,获得SV值,并将2种方法的测量结果进行比较;同时对正常志愿者与患者组、正常志愿者组左、右两侧心室,以及PCMRI法在主动脉瓣上和肺动脉瓣上水平测得的左右心室SV均值进行比较。结果(1)PCMRI与SCMRI法所测正常志愿者左、右心室的SV相关良好,相关系数分别为090和087,2种方法测得的SV均值差异无统计学意义(P>005)。(2)患者组2种MRI测量方法所得左室SV的相关系数为085,SV均值比较差异无统计学意义(P>005),应用PCMRI法在主动脉瓣上水平测得正常人与患者组的SV均值,差异有统计学意义(P<005)。结论PCMRI与SCMRI法相比,对心室每搏输出量(SV)测量准确,相关性好,重复性高,加

Comparative study on ventricular function with two MR methods: phase contrast MR and stereological cine MR

Objective To investigate the clinical application value of phase contrast MR imaging and stereological cine MR imaging in the assessment of ventricular function. Methods Twelve healthy adult volunteers and 46 patients with cardiac diseases were studied with phase contrast MR imaging (PCMRI) and stereological cine MR imaging (SCMRI) respectively. After acquiring SCMRI of short axis images of the heart, left and right ventricular end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) were calculated by drawing the contour of endocardium and epicardium. Then the SVs were measured by using analysis software (ARGUS) and PCMRI, which located at the level above the ascending aorta and main pulmonary artery valves. The measurement results of two methods were compared. Results (1) The SV values of right and left ventricle in healthy adult volunteers with PCMRI were correlated well with those obtained by SCMRI, and the correlation coefficients were 0.90 (left ventricle) and 0.87 (right ventricle), respectively. There was no significant difference for mean SV between PCMRI and SCMRI measurements (P>0.05). (2) In the patient group, the SV values of left ventricle using two methods had no significant difference, and the correlative coefficient was 0.85. However, the SV measurement values between healthy group and patient group at the level above ascending aorta were statistically different (P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with SCMRI, PCMRI is an accurate and reproducible methods of measuring SV of ventricle, and the measurement results are correlated well each other. Using the analysis software, PCMRI has a higher clinical value for evaluating the ventricular function.