磁共振血管壁成像评估颈动脉中重度狭窄患者斑块特征与脑血流灌注的相关性

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.04.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 分别采用高分辨率磁共振成像(high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging，HR-MRI)和颅脑三维伪连续动脉自旋标记(3D pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling，3D pcASL)分析单侧颈动脉中重度狭窄患者斑块特征与脑血流量(cerebral blood flow，CBF)的相关性。方法: 选择43例单侧颈动脉中重度狭窄患者，采用HR-MRI分别测量颈动脉狭窄程度、最大管壁厚度(maximum wall thickness，Max WT)、标准化管壁指数(normalized wall index，NWI)，进行斑块特征分析，记录有无斑块内出血(intraplaque hemorrhage，IPH)、富脂坏死核(lipid-rich necrotic nuc-leus，LRNC)、钙化和溃疡，以及钙化和LRNC分级。采用3D pcASL测量双侧大脑中动脉供血区内感兴趣区的CBF值。采用配对样本t检验比较患侧和对侧CBF值差异，采用Spearman相关分析比较患侧颈动脉狭窄程度、Max WT、NWI与CBF值的相关性，采用Mann-Whitney U检验比较斑块成分中有无IPH、溃疡时CBF值的差异，采用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较不同级别钙化、LRNC时CBF值差异。结果: 患侧颈动脉平均狭窄程度为77.30%±11.79%。患侧和对侧平均CBF值分别为(46.77±11.65) mL/(100 g·min)和(49.92±9.95) mL/(100 g·min)，差异有统计学意义(t=-2.474，P=0.017)。患侧颈动脉斑块平均Max WT为(6.40±1.87) mm，平均NWI为62.91%±8.87%。患侧颈动脉狭窄程度、Max WT、NWI与CBF值未见明显相关(P>0.05)。斑块成分分析显示，患侧斑块内有无钙化及钙化程度不同时，CBF值有差异(P=0.030)，有无IPH、溃疡及LRNC时的患侧CBF值差异无统计学意义。结论: 单侧颈动脉中重度狭窄患者中，斑块内钙化可能影响脑血流灌注，当无钙化存在时，需要特别关注斑块成分。

关键词: 动脉粥样硬化斑块, 颈动脉狭窄, 血管钙化, 磁共振成像, 脑血流

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the correlations between carotid plaque characteristics and cerebral blood flow (CBF) in patients with unilateral moderate to severe carotid stenosis using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR-MRI) and 3D pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (3D pcASL). Methods: A total of 43 patients with unilateral moderate to severe carotid stenosis were recruited. The degree of carotid stenosis, maximum wall thickness (Max WT) and normalized wall index (NWI) were measured using HR-MRI. The plaque characteristics were analyzed. Presence or absence of plaque components including intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), lipid-rich necrotic nucleus (LRNC), calcification and ulcer were identified, and the grades of calcification and LRNC were recorded. CBF values within the region of interest representing the bilateral middle cerebral artery distribution were acquired using 3D pcASL. Paired sample t test was used to compare the differences of CBF values between the index side and the contralateral side. Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the correlations of CBF values with the degree of carotid stenosis, Max WT and NWI. The differences of CBF values between the patients with or without IPH and ulcer were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Different levels of calcification and LRNC were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively. Results: The ave-rage degree of carotid stenosis at the index side was 77.30%±11.79%. The mean CBF value of the index side was (46.77±11.65) mL/(100 g·min), and that of the contralateral side was (49.92±9.95) mL/(100 g·min), and the difference was statistically significant (t=-2.474, P=0.017). The mean Max WT and NWI of the carotid plaques at the index side was (6.40±1.87) mm and 62.91%±8.87%, respectively. There were no significant correlations of CBF values with the degrees of stenosis, Max WT and NMI (P>0.05). Plaque composition analysis showed that the CBF values of the index side were different when there was calcification or not and the degrees of calcification were different (P=0.030), but there were no differences between the CBF values on the index sides with or without IPH, ulcer and LRNC. Conclusion: In patients with unilateral moderate to severe carotid stenosis, calcification might affect CBF perfusion. When there is no calcification, the plaque components need attention.

Key words: Atherosclerotic plaque, Carotid stenosis, Vascular calcification, Magnetic resonance imaging, Cerebral blood flow

中图分类号:

R543.4

刘颖,霍然,徐慧敏,王筝,王涛,袁慧书. 磁共振血管壁成像评估颈动脉中重度狭窄患者斑块特征与脑血流灌注的相关性[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 646-651.

Ying LIU,Ran HUO,Hui-min XU,Zheng WANG,Tao WANG,Hui-shu YUAN. Correlations between plaque characteristics and cerebral blood flow in patients with moderate to severe carotid stenosis using magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging[J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(4): 646-651.

图/表 5

表1

表2

表3

图1

图2

参考文献 23

1	Zhao X , Underhill HR , Zhao Q , et al. Discriminating carotid atherosclerotic lesion severity by luminal stenosis and plaque burden: A comparison utilizing high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla[J]. Stroke, 2011, 42 (2): 347- 353. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.597328
2	陈蓓蕾, 徐俊, 叶靖, 等. 有症状颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉斑块的稳定性: 高分辨率磁共振成像研究[J]. 国际脑血管病杂志, 2017, 25 (2): 127- 133.
3	Gijsen FJ , Nieuwstadt HA , Wentzel JJ , et al. Carotid plaque morphological classification compared with biomechanical cap stress: Implications for a magnetic resonance imaging-based assessment[J]. Stroke, 2015, 46 (8): 2124- 2128. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009707
4	Sun J , Zhao XQ , Balu N , et al. Carotid plaque lipid content and fibrous cap status predict systemic CV outcomes: The MRI substudy in AIM-HIGH[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2017, 10 (3): 241- 249. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.06.017
5	Brinjikji W , Huston J 3rd , Rabinstein AA , et al. Contemporary carotid imaging: From degree of stenosis to plaque vulnerability[J]. J Neurosurg, 2016, 124 (1): 27- 42. doi: 10.3171/2015.1.JNS142452
6	崔雪花, 叶玉芳, 单春辉, 等. MR高分辨率管壁成像与超声评价颈动脉斑块负荷的对比研究[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2019, 53 (8): 720- 723.
7	李晓, 赵辉林, 孙贝贝, 等. MR测定颈动脉易损斑块特征与急性缺血性脑卒中的关系[J]. 实用放射学杂志, 2017, 33 (3): 373- 377.
8	韩旭, 赵锡海, 崔豹, 等. 颈动脉粥样硬化疾病评分与高分辨率磁共振成像特征关系研究[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2018, 20 (2): 117- 121.
9	王康, 陈欢, 马景旭, 等. 磁共振SNAP序列对颈动脉粥样硬化斑块的评估[J]. 影像诊断与介入放射学, 2018, 27 (1): 40- 46.
10	蔡颖, 陈硕, 赵锡海, 等. 颅颈动脉三维磁共振管壁成像技术及其应用进展[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2016, 32 (12): 1938- 1942.
11	Porcu M , Anzidei M , Suri JS , et al. Carotid artery imaging: The study of intra-plaque vascularization and hemorrhage in the era of the "vulnerable" plaque[J]. J Neuroradiol, 2020, 47 (6): 464- 472.
12	Howard DP , van Lammeren GW , Rothwell PM , et al. Symptoma-tic carotid atherosclerotic disease: Correlations between plaque composition and ipsilatera1 stroke risk[J]. Stroke, 2015, 46 (1): 182- 189.
13	Nezamzadeh M , Matson GB , Young K , et al. Improved pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling for mapping brain perfusion[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010, 31 (6): 1419- 1427.
14	van den Bouwhuijsen QJ , Bos D , Ikram MA , et al. Coexistence of calcification, intraplaque hemorrhage and lipid core within the asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid plaque: The Rotterdam study[J]. Cerebrovasc Dis, 2015, 39 (5/6): 319- 324.
15	Underhill HR , Hatsukami TS , Cai J , et al. A noninvasive imaging approach to assess plaque severity: The carotid atherosclerosis score[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2010, 31 (6): 1068- 1075.
16	Qiao H , Li F , Xu D , et al. Identification of carotid lipid-rich necrotic core and calcification by 3Dmagnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient-echo imaging[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2018, 53, 71- 76.
17	唐巍, 董红霖. 应用高分辨率磁共振影像分析颈动脉斑块易损性的研究进展[J]. 中华血管外科杂志, 2017, 2 (4): 251- 254.
18	Zarrinkoob L , Wahlin A , Ambarki K , et al. Blood flow lateralization and collateral compensatory mechanisms in patients with caro-tid artery stenosis[J]. Stroke, 2019, 50 (5): 1081- 1088.
19	Jones CE , Wolf RL , Detre JA , et al. Structural MRI of carotid artery atherosclerotic lesion burden and characterization of hemispheric cerebral blood flow before and after carotid endarterectomy[J]. NMR Biomed, 2006, 19 (2): 198- 208.
20	王康, 贾琳, 王云玲, 等. MR SNAP序列定量分析颈动脉粥样硬化斑块内出血的初步研究[J]. 实用放射学杂志, 2018, 34 (8): 1172- 1175.
21	Yamada K , Yoshimura S , Shirakawa M , et al. Asymptomatic moderate carotid artery stenosis with intraplaquehemorrhage: Progression of degree of stenosis and new ischemic stroke[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2019, 63, 95- 99.
22	Zhang Q , Qiao H , Dou J , et al. Plaque components segmentation in carotid artery on simultaneous non-contrast angiography and intraplaque hemorrhage imaging using machine learning[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 60, 93- 100.
23	Liu Y , Wang M , Zhang B , et al. Size of carotid artery intraplaque hemorrhage and acute ischemic stroke: A cardiovascular magnetic resonance Chinese atherosclerosis risk evaluation study[J]. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2019, 21 (1): 36.

相关文章 15

[1]	邢念增,王明帅,杨飞亚,尹路,韩苏军. 前列腺免活检创新理念的临床实践及其应用前景[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 565-566.
[2]	田宇轩,阮明健,刘毅,李德润,吴静云,沈棋,范宇,金杰. 双参数MRI改良PI-RADS评分4分和5分病灶的最大径对临床有意义前列腺癌的预测效果[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 567-574.
[3]	刘毅,袁昌巍,吴静云,沈棋,肖江喜,赵峥,王霄英,李学松,何志嵩,周利群. 靶向穿刺+6针系统穿刺对PI-RADS 5分患者的前列腺癌诊断效能[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 812-817.
[4]	袁昌巍,李德润,李志华,刘毅,山刚志,李学松,周利群. 多参数磁共振成像中动态对比增强状态在诊断PI-RADS 4分前列腺癌中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 838-842.
[5]	傅强,高冠英,徐雁,林卓华,孙由静,崔立刚. 无症状髋关节前上盂唇撕裂超声与磁共振检查的对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 665-669.
[6]	叶珊,金萍萍,张楠,邬海博,石林,赵强,杨坤,袁慧书,樊东升. 肌萎缩侧索硬化患者认知功能改变与脑皮层厚度分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(6): 1158-1162.
[7]	蔡颖,万巧琴,蔡宪杰,高亚娟,韩鸿宾. 光生物调节加速脑组织间液引流及其机制[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(5): 1000-1005.
[8]	王书磊,高阳旭,张宏武,杨海波,李辉,李宇,沈笠雪,姚红新. 儿童基底节区生殖细胞瘤30例临床分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(2): 222-226.
[9]	张帆,陈曲,郝一昌,颜野,刘承,黄毅,马潞林. 术前及术后膜性尿道长度与腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术后控尿功能恢复的相关性[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(2): 299-303.
[10]	白鹏,王涛,周阳,陶立元,李刚,李正迁,郭向阳. 不同转流标准对颈动脉内膜切除术后脑梗死的影响[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1144-1151.
[11]	吴一凡,张晓圆,任爽,玉应香,常翠青. 基于磁共振的青年男性股四头肌的测量和评估[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(5): 843-849.
[12]	盛荟,梁磊,周童亮,贾彦兴,王彤,袁兰,韩鸿宾. 光磁双模态探针钆-[4,7-双-羧甲基-10-(2-荧光素硫脲乙基)-1,4,7,10-四氮杂环十二烷-1-基]-乙酸络合物合成方法的改进[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(5): 959-963.
[13]	赵世明,杨铁军,许春苗,郭孝峰,马永康,陈学军,李祥,何朝宏. 3.0T磁共振成像在接受过经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术膀胱癌中诊断肌层浸润的应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(4): 701-704.
[14]	宋宇,韩鸿宾,杨军,王艾博,和清源,李媛媛,赵国梅,高亚娟,王睿,韩易兴,刘爱连,宋清伟. 脑对流增强给药对老年大鼠脑细胞外间隙微观结构的影响[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(2): 362-367.
[15]	贾子昌,李选,郑梅,栾景源,王昌明,韩金涛. 复合手术治疗无残端的症状性长段颈内动脉慢性闭塞[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(1): 177-180.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Plaque characteristics	Score 0	Score 1	Score 2
Intraplaque hemorrhage	21 (48.84)	22 (51.16)
Lipid-rich necrotic nucleus	5 (11.63)	11 (25.58)	27 (62.79)
Calcification	8 (18.60)	25 (58.14)	10 (23.26)
Ulcer	12 (27.91)	31 (72.09)

Variable	Correlation coefficient	P value
Degree of carotid stenosis	-0.106	0.499
Max WT	0.158	0.311
NWI	-0.017	0.913

Plaque characteristics	Score 0	Score 1	Score 2	P value
Intraplaque hemorrhage	47.04±10.80	46.52±12.66		0.662
Lipid-rich necrotic nucleus	53.57±14.61	45.79±10.01	45.92±11.75	0.528
Calcification	39.27±11.89	46.64±10.42	53.11±11.81	0.030
Ulcer	46.10±12.67	48.52±8.72		0.565