Study on Renal Perfusion in Chronic Kidney Disease by Semi-quantitative Analysis of Superb Micro-vascular Imaging and Color Doppler
-
摘要:
目的 超微血流成像(superb microvascular imaging,SMI)与彩色多普勒(color doppler flow imaging,CDFI)结合自定义评分法在评价慢性肾脏病(CKD)肾脏血流灌注中的应用价值。 方法 分别运用CDFI和SMI观察病例组与对照组肾脏血流灌注情况,并采用自定义评分标准对其进行血流灌注评分。病例组为云南省第二人民医院诊治的158例CKD患者,按肾小球滤过率(GFR)诊断标准分为CKD 1~5期,对照组为云南省第二人民医院体检200例双侧肾脏正常者。 结果 CDFI与SMI评分组内比较,对照组、CKD1及CKD5期,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),CKD2、CKD3、CKD4期,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。各组CDFI评分两两比较:对照组与CKD1期,CKD1与CKD2期,CKD4与CKD5期比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),其余两两比较,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。各组SMI评分两两比较:对照组与CKD1期,CKD4与CKD5期比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),其余两两比较,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。 结论 自定义评分法能用于肾脏血流灌注的半定量评估,SMI能识别较早期CKD病变的血流灌注情况,二者结合有助于临床评价CKD病变程度及治疗效果。 Abstract:Objective To exlpore the application value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI) and superb microvascular imaging (SMI) combined with self-defined scoring in the evaluation of renal perfusion in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods CDFI and SMI were used to observe the renal perfusion conditions of the case group and the control group, the blood perfusion scores were obtained by using the self-defined scoring criteria. The case group was 158 patients with CKD diagnosed, and was divided into CKD1-5 stages according to the diagnostic criteria of GFR. The control group was 200 patients with normal bilateral kidneys. Results CDFI and SMI scores were compared within the group, the control group, CKD1, CKD5 were not statistically significant (P > 0.05), CKD2, CKD3, CKD4 were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in CDFI scores between the control group and CKD1, CKD1 and CKD2, CKD4 and CKD5 (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences in the other groups (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in SMI scores between the control group and CKD1, CKD4 and CKD5 (P > 0.05), but there were significant differences in the other groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion The self-defined scoring method can be used for semi-quantitative evaluation of renal blood perfusion. SMI can identify the blood perfusion of early CKD lesions. The combination of the two methods is helpful to evaluate the degree of CKD lesions and the therapeutic effect. -
Key words:
- Chronic kidney disease /
- Kidney /
- Color doppler imaging /
- Superb micro-vascular imaging
-
表 1 对照组和病例组肾脏大小各测值[cm,(
$ \bar x\pm s$ )]Table 1. Measured values of kidney size in control group and case group [cm, (
$\bar x\pm s $ )]组别 n 长 宽 厚 皮质厚度 对照组 50 10.64 ± 0.71 5.71 ± 0.55 4.98 ± 0.87 0.81 ± 0.72 病例组 158 8.61 ± 1.28* 3.79 ± 0.54* 3.31 ± 0.47* 0.63 ± 0.22* t 10.733 22.294 17.437 2.832 P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 与对照组比较,*P < 0.05。 表 2 对照组和各病例组血流灌注分数值分布(
$\bar x\pm s $ )Table 2. Distribution of blood perfusion scores in control group and case groups (
$\bar x\pm s $ )组别 n 年龄(岁) CDFI评分值 SMI评分值 t(P) 对照组 50 51.49 ± 14.51 59.08 ± 4.52 60.87 ± 4.24 2.052(0.050) CKD1 27 50.96 ± 12.26 57.78 ± 4.64 59.89 ± 4.31 2.434(0.052) CKD2 29 52.01 ± 16.42 56.41 ± 2.52 58.07 ± 3.18# 6.755(0.000) CKD3 32 54.21 ± 15.33 31.55 ± 4.34 38.58 ± 4.57# 2.827(0.008) CKD4 34 57.29 ± 13.32 12.18 ± 3.18 14.65 ± 3.15# 1.965(0.027) CKD5 36 55.31 ± 14.49 11.74 ± 2.71 12.95 ± 2.77 1.866(0.068) P 0.000* 0.000* 对整体数据行方差分析,*P < 0.05;与CDFI评分值比较,#P < 0.05。 表 3 对照组及各病例组的CDFI与SMI评分值两两比较的统计结果
Table 3. Comparison of CDFI and SMI scores between control group and case groups
P值 CKD1组 CKD2组 CKD3组 CKD4组 CKD5组 对照组 CKD1组 − ▲ △ △ △ ▲ CKD2组 ○ − △ △ △ △ CKD3组 ○ ○ − △ △ △ CKD4组 ○ ○ ○ − ▲ △ CKD5组 ○ ○ ○ ● − △ 对照组 ● ○ ○ ○ ○ − CDFI组两两比较,△P < 0.05;CDFI组两两比较,▲P > 0.05;SMI组两两比较,○P < 0.05;SMI组两两比较,●P > 0.05。 -
[1] National Kidney Foundation. K/DODI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation,classification and stratification[J]. AmJ Kidney Dis,2002,39(S1):S1-S246. [2] Shi Z,Zhou P,Zhang C. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in China[J]. Lancet,2012,380(9838):214-216. [3] 范亚娟. 彩色多普勒超声在诊断急慢性肾脏弥漫性病变中的临床价值[J]. 慢性病学杂志,2017,18(7):805-807. [4] Tsuruoka K,Yasuda T,Koitabashi K,et al. Evaluation of renal microcirculation by contrast-enhanced ultrasound with sonazoid as acontrast agent[J]. Int Heart J,2010,51(3):176-182. doi: 10.1536/ihj.51.176 [5] 田雅菊. 彩色超声多普勒评价慢性肾功能不全肾内血流动力学改变[J]. 中国实用医药,2015,10(31):58-59. [6] Levey A S,Eckardt K U,Dorman N M,et al. Nomenclature for kidney function and disease: report of a kidney disease: Improving global outcomes (KDIGO) consensus conference[J]. Kidney Int,2020,97(6):1117-1129. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.02.010 [7] Zhao Y F,Zhou P,Liu W G. Application of a novel micro-vascular imaging technique in breast lesion evaluation[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol,2016,42(9):2097-2105. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.05.010 [8] PetrucciI,Clementi A,Sessa C,et al. Ultrasound and color doppler applications in chronic kidney disease[J]. J Nephrol,2018,31(6):863-879. doi: 10.1007/s40620-018-0531-1 [9] 张志国,吴文海,李舒琪,等. 腱鞘巨细胞瘤的临床病理学及影像学分析[J]. 中国医疗设备,2015,30(2):44-48. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1633.2015.02.011 [10] 杨广辉,孙海燕,赵颖. SMI评估TI-RADS 4级甲状腺结节内穿支血管的临床价值分析[J]. 中国超声医学杂志,2019,35(8):684-687. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0101.2019.08.005 [11] Ryoo Inseon,Suh Sangil,Lee Young Hen,et al. Vascular pattern analysis on microvascular sonography for differentiation of pleomorphic adenomas and warthin tumors of salivary glands[J]. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine,2018,37(3):613-620. doi: 10.1002/jum.14368 [12] 赵梦婷,王红春,李柔萱,等. 超微血流显像评价颈动脉斑块内新生血管及预测脑卒中的应用价值[J]. 河北医药,2019,41(15):2300-2303. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-7386.2019.15.014 [13] 张蕾,朱俊明,李亮,等. 超微血流成像技术评估腹主动脉夹层患者分支动脉受累的临床价值[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志,2019,28(6):474-479. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004‐4477.2019.06.003 [14] Mu J,Mao Y,Li F,et al. Superb microvascular imaging is a rational choice for accurate bosniak classification of renal cystic masses[J]. Br J Radiol,2019,92(1099):20181038. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20181038 [15] 马晴,徐垚,李红丽,等. 超声造影技术对慢性肾脏病患者长期预后的预测价值[J]. 中华肾脏病杂志,2017,33(3):180-186. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-7097.2017.03.004 [16] 涂美琳,谢文佳,陈洪宇,等. 超声造影定量分析在早期原发性慢性肾病诊断中的应用价值[J]. 浙江医学,2019,41(21):2324-2327. doi: 10.12056/j.issn.1006-2785.2019.41.21.2019-1415