血斑成像与传统多普勒超声在主动脉血流幻象中经瓣压降估计的比较。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Cameron Dockerill, Harminder Gill, Joao Filipe Fernandes, Amanda Q X Nio, Ronak Rajani, Pablo Lamata
{"title":"血斑成像与传统多普勒超声在主动脉血流幻象中经瓣压降估计的比较。","authors":"Cameron Dockerill,&nbsp;Harminder Gill,&nbsp;Joao Filipe Fernandes,&nbsp;Amanda Q X Nio,&nbsp;Ronak Rajani,&nbsp;Pablo Lamata","doi":"10.1186/s12947-022-00286-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transvalvular pressure drops are assessed using Doppler echocardiography for the diagnosis of heart valve disease. However, this method is highly user-dependent and may overestimate transvalvular pressure drops by up to 54%. This work aimed to assess transvalvular pressure drops using velocity fields derived from blood speckle imaging (BSI), as a potential alternative to Doppler.  METHODS: A silicone 3D-printed aortic valve model, segmented from a healthy CT scan, was placed within a silicone tube. A CardioFlow 5000MR flow pump was used to circulate blood mimicking fluid to create eight different stenotic conditions. Eight PendoTech pressure sensors were embedded along the tube wall to record ground-truth pressures (10 kHz). The simplified Bernoulli equation with measured probe angle correction was used to estimate pressure drop from maximum velocity values acquired across the valve using Doppler and BSI with a GE Vivid E95 ultrasound machine and 6S-D cardiac phased array transducer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between pressure drops estimated by Doppler, BSI and ground-truth at the lowest stenotic condition (10.4 ± 1.76, 10.3 ± 1.63 vs. 10.5 ± 1.00 mmHg, respectively; p > 0.05). Significant differences were observed between the pressure drops estimated by the three methods at the greatest stenotic condition (26.4 ± 1.52, 14.5 ± 2.14 vs. 20.9 ± 1.92 mmHg for Doppler, BSI and ground-truth, respectively; p < 0.05). Across all conditions, Doppler overestimated pressure drop (Bias = 3.92 mmHg), while BSI underestimated pressure drop (Bias = -3.31 mmHg).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BSI accurately estimated pressure drops only up to 10.5 mmHg in controlled phantom conditions of low stenotic burden. Doppler overestimated pressure drops of 20.9 mmHg. Although BSI offers a number of theoretical advantages to conventional Doppler echocardiography, further refinements and clinical studies are required with BSI before it can be used to improve transvalvular pressure drop estimation in the clinical evaluation of aortic stenosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9613,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Ultrasound","volume":" ","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9287947/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blood speckle imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound for transvalvular pressure drop estimation in an aortic flow phantom.\",\"authors\":\"Cameron Dockerill,&nbsp;Harminder Gill,&nbsp;Joao Filipe Fernandes,&nbsp;Amanda Q X Nio,&nbsp;Ronak Rajani,&nbsp;Pablo Lamata\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12947-022-00286-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transvalvular pressure drops are assessed using Doppler echocardiography for the diagnosis of heart valve disease. However, this method is highly user-dependent and may overestimate transvalvular pressure drops by up to 54%. This work aimed to assess transvalvular pressure drops using velocity fields derived from blood speckle imaging (BSI), as a potential alternative to Doppler.  METHODS: A silicone 3D-printed aortic valve model, segmented from a healthy CT scan, was placed within a silicone tube. A CardioFlow 5000MR flow pump was used to circulate blood mimicking fluid to create eight different stenotic conditions. Eight PendoTech pressure sensors were embedded along the tube wall to record ground-truth pressures (10 kHz). The simplified Bernoulli equation with measured probe angle correction was used to estimate pressure drop from maximum velocity values acquired across the valve using Doppler and BSI with a GE Vivid E95 ultrasound machine and 6S-D cardiac phased array transducer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between pressure drops estimated by Doppler, BSI and ground-truth at the lowest stenotic condition (10.4 ± 1.76, 10.3 ± 1.63 vs. 10.5 ± 1.00 mmHg, respectively; p > 0.05). Significant differences were observed between the pressure drops estimated by the three methods at the greatest stenotic condition (26.4 ± 1.52, 14.5 ± 2.14 vs. 20.9 ± 1.92 mmHg for Doppler, BSI and ground-truth, respectively; p < 0.05). Across all conditions, Doppler overestimated pressure drop (Bias = 3.92 mmHg), while BSI underestimated pressure drop (Bias = -3.31 mmHg).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BSI accurately estimated pressure drops only up to 10.5 mmHg in controlled phantom conditions of low stenotic burden. Doppler overestimated pressure drops of 20.9 mmHg. Although BSI offers a number of theoretical advantages to conventional Doppler echocardiography, further refinements and clinical studies are required with BSI before it can be used to improve transvalvular pressure drop estimation in the clinical evaluation of aortic stenosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Ultrasound\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9287947/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12947-022-00286-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12947-022-00286-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:通过多普勒超声心动图评估经瓣压降对心脏瓣膜疾病的诊断。然而,这种方法高度依赖于用户,可能会高估经瓣压降,最高可达54%。本研究旨在利用血斑成像(BSI)得出的速度场来评估经瓣压降,作为多普勒的潜在替代方法。方法:硅胶3d打印主动脉瓣模型,从健康的CT扫描中分割,放置在硅胶管内。使用CardioFlow 5000MR血流泵循环血液模拟流体,以创造八种不同的狭窄条件。沿着管壁嵌入了8个PendoTech压力传感器,以记录地面真实压力(10khz)。通过GE Vivid E95超声仪和6S-D心脏相控阵换能器,使用简化的伯努利方程和测量的探头角校正,通过多普勒和BSI获得的最大流速值来估计压降。结果:在最低狭窄状态下,多普勒压降、BSI压降和ground-truth压降分别为10.4±1.76、10.3±1.63和10.5±1.00 mmHg;p > 0.05)。三种方法在最大狭窄状态下的压降值分别为26.4±1.52、14.5±2.14和20.9±1.92 mmHg;结论:BSI准确地估计在低狭窄负担的受控幻觉条件下,血压下降仅达10.5 mmHg。多普勒高估了20.9毫米汞柱的压降。虽然BSI在理论上比传统的多普勒超声心动图有很多优势,但在应用BSI改善主动脉狭窄临床评价中的经瓣压降估计之前,还需要进一步的完善和临床研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Blood speckle imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound for transvalvular pressure drop estimation in an aortic flow phantom.

Blood speckle imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound for transvalvular pressure drop estimation in an aortic flow phantom.

Blood speckle imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound for transvalvular pressure drop estimation in an aortic flow phantom.

Blood speckle imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound for transvalvular pressure drop estimation in an aortic flow phantom.

Background: Transvalvular pressure drops are assessed using Doppler echocardiography for the diagnosis of heart valve disease. However, this method is highly user-dependent and may overestimate transvalvular pressure drops by up to 54%. This work aimed to assess transvalvular pressure drops using velocity fields derived from blood speckle imaging (BSI), as a potential alternative to Doppler.  METHODS: A silicone 3D-printed aortic valve model, segmented from a healthy CT scan, was placed within a silicone tube. A CardioFlow 5000MR flow pump was used to circulate blood mimicking fluid to create eight different stenotic conditions. Eight PendoTech pressure sensors were embedded along the tube wall to record ground-truth pressures (10 kHz). The simplified Bernoulli equation with measured probe angle correction was used to estimate pressure drop from maximum velocity values acquired across the valve using Doppler and BSI with a GE Vivid E95 ultrasound machine and 6S-D cardiac phased array transducer.

Results: There were no significant differences between pressure drops estimated by Doppler, BSI and ground-truth at the lowest stenotic condition (10.4 ± 1.76, 10.3 ± 1.63 vs. 10.5 ± 1.00 mmHg, respectively; p > 0.05). Significant differences were observed between the pressure drops estimated by the three methods at the greatest stenotic condition (26.4 ± 1.52, 14.5 ± 2.14 vs. 20.9 ± 1.92 mmHg for Doppler, BSI and ground-truth, respectively; p < 0.05). Across all conditions, Doppler overestimated pressure drop (Bias = 3.92 mmHg), while BSI underestimated pressure drop (Bias = -3.31 mmHg).

Conclusions: BSI accurately estimated pressure drops only up to 10.5 mmHg in controlled phantom conditions of low stenotic burden. Doppler overestimated pressure drops of 20.9 mmHg. Although BSI offers a number of theoretical advantages to conventional Doppler echocardiography, further refinements and clinical studies are required with BSI before it can be used to improve transvalvular pressure drop estimation in the clinical evaluation of aortic stenosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Ultrasound
Cardiovascular Ultrasound CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Ultrasound is an online journal, publishing peer-reviewed: original research; authoritative reviews; case reports on challenging and/or unusual diagnostic aspects; and expert opinions on new techniques and technologies. We are particularly interested in articles that include relevant images or video files, which provide an additional dimension to published articles and enhance understanding. As an open access journal, Cardiovascular Ultrasound ensures high visibility for authors in addition to providing an up-to-date and freely available resource for the community. The journal welcomes discussion, and provides a forum for publishing opinion and debate ranging from biology to engineering to clinical echocardiography, with both speed and versatility.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信