Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To compare fully quantitative and semiquantitative analysis of rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) using a dual-bolus first-pass perfusion MRI method in humans.
Materials And Methods: Rest and dipyridamole stress perfusion imaging was performed on 10 healthy humans by administering gadolinium contrast using a dual-bolus protocol. Ventricular and myocardial time-signal intensity curves were generated from a series of T1-weighted images and adjusted for surface-coil intensity variations. Corrected signal intensity curves were then fitted using fully quantitative model constrained deconvolution (MCD) to quantify MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR. The results were compared with semiquantitative contrast enhancement ratio (CER) and upslope index (SLP) measurements.
Results: MBF (mL/min/g) estimated with MCD averaged 1.02 +/- 0.22 at rest and 3.39 +/- 0.59 for stress with no overlap in measures. MPR was 3.43 +/- 0.71, 1.91 +/- 0.65, and 1.16 +/- 0.19 using MCD, SLP, and CER. Both semiquantitative parameters (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR (P < 0.001) and failed to completely discriminate rest and stress perfusion.
Conclusion: Rest and stress MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR estimated by dual-bolus perfusion MRI fit within published ranges. Semiquantitative methods (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20502 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!