Premium
Assessment of Skeletal Muscle Perfusion Using Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasonography
Author(s) -
Krix Martin,
Weber Marc-André,
Krakowski-Roosen Holger,
Huttner Hagen B.,
Delorme Stefan,
Kauczor Hans-Ulrich,
Hildebrandt Wulf
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/jum.2005.24.4.431
Subject(s) - medicine , perfusion , forearm , plethysmograph , biceps , blood flow , contrast enhanced ultrasound , skeletal muscle , ultrasonography , blood volume , perfusion scanning , nuclear medicine , radiology , anatomy
Objective The purpose of this study was to develop a clinically applicable examination method to assess perfusion of the skeletal muscle using contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) analyzing replenishment kinetics of microbubbles. Methods Power Doppler sonography (7 MHz) after intravenous bolus injection of 10 mL of a microbubble contrast agent was used to repeatedly examine the perfusion of the right biceps muscle at rest and after defined exercise in 10 healthy volunteers. Parameters of perfusion, such as local blood volume, blood flow velocity, and perfusion, were calculated by a modified analysis of replenishment kinetics. For validation, CEUS was correlated with venous occlusion plethysmography (VOP) examining the right forearm flexor muscles at rest and after defined exercise. Results The CEUS examination was easily feasible and was able to depict the physiologic large variability of the right biceps muscle perfusion at rest (mean ± SD, 3.0 ± 2.3 [~mL/s • 100 mg]) compared with the results after exercise (22.9 ± 11.0 [~mL/s • 100 mg]). The perfusion calculated with VOP significantly correlated with the CEUS parameters perfusion ( r = 0.81; P < .001) and blood volume ( r = 0.82; P < .001). The calculated mean blood flow velocity in the right forearm flexor muscles raised from 0.41 ± 0.24 mm/s at rest to 0.64 ± 0.39 mm/s after exercise, showing a significant correlation with the CEUS perfusion ( r = 0.72; P < .001). Conclusions Muscle perfusion can be easily and quantitatively assessed with CEUS. Compared with VOP, CEUS allows for a separate analysis of different muscle groups, unaffected by skin perfusion. Its application may be of particular interest in the diagnosis and monitoring of pathologic microvascularization in myositis or diabetic obstructive disease.