Optimization of ultrasound assessments of arterial function

Lee  Stoner; Cary  West; Danielle Morozewicz  Cates; Joanna M.  Young

doi:10.4236/ojcd.2011.13004

Lee Stoner, Cary West, Danielle Morozewicz Cates, Joanna M. Young

Abstract: Ultrasound technology is widely used to make assessments of arterial function. The delicate nature of these measurements requires that sources of errors are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess variability due to probe selection and optimization settings. Methods: Ten healthy 20 - 26 year old male and female subjects were tested. Brachial artery size (diameter) was measured thirty times a second using a B-mode Ultrasound unit equipped with a high-resolution video capture device. Distension was calculated using systolic and diastolic diameters. To assess intersession variability, we made recordings over twelve minutes; with the probe being removed and re-positioned every four minutes. To assess variability due to probe selection and optimization, we manipulated four parameters: 1) Probe selection (7 - 13 MHz, 5 - 10 MHz, 6 - 9 MHz). 2) Probe frequency (11 MHZ, 9.6 MHZ, 8 MHz). 3) Measurement location (near, center or middle field). And, 4) Image mode (B-mode, duplex-mode). To assess inter-session variability, three sets of recordings were made for each probe selection and optimization setting. Results: Mean diameter ICC’s for inter-session variability, probe frequency, measurement location, image display size, and probe selection were 0.99, 0.98, 0.97, 0.99, and 0.90 respectively. Distension ICC’s for intersession variability, probe frequency, measurement location, image display size, and probe selection were 0.66, 0.26, 0.62, 0.60, and 0.51 respectively. Conclusions: Altering probe selection increases measurement variability to the greatest extent. However, as long as probe selection and optimization settings are kept constant, our inter-session variability shows that reliable measurements can be made.

Keywords: Ultrasound; Reproducibility; Diameters; Distension; Arterial Stiffness

Cite this paper: nullStoner, L. , West, C. , Cates, D. and Young, J. (2011) Optimization of ultrasound assessments of arterial function. Open Journal of Clinical Diagnostics, 1, 15-21. doi: 10.4236/ojcd.2011.13004.

References

[1] Van Popele, N.M., et al. (2001) Association between arterial stiffness and atherosclerosis: The Rotterdam study. Stroke, 32, 454-460. doi:10.1161/01.STR.32.2.454

[2] Cohn, J. (1999) Vascular wall function as a risk marker for cardiovascular disease. Journal of Hypertension, 17, S41-S44. doi:10.1016/S0895-7061(01)02154-9

[3] Cohn, J.N. (2001) Arterial compliance to stratify cardiovascular risk: More precision in therapeutic decision making. American Journal of Hypertension, 14, S258-S263. doi:10.1016/S0895-7061(01)02154-9

[4] Kingwell, B.A. (2002) Large artery stiffness: Implications for exercise capacity and cardiovascular risk. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 29, 214-217. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03622.x

[5] Hangiandreou, N.J., et al. (2002) The effects of irreversible JPEG compression on an automated algorithm for measuring carotid artery intima-media thickness from ultrasound images. Journal of Digital Imaging, 15, 258-260.

[6] Sabatier, M.J., et al. (2006) Doppler ultrasound assessment of posterior tibial artery size in humans. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, 34, 223-230. doi:10.1002/jcu.20229

[7] Stoner, L., et al. (2006) Upper versus lower extremity arterial function after spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 29, 138-146.

[8] Stoner, L., et al. (2004) The relationship between blood velocity and conduit artery diameter, and the effects of smoking on vascular responsiveness. Journal of Applied Physiology, 96, 2139-2145.

[9] Fleiss, J.L. (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York.

[10] Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 135-160. doi:10.1191/096228099673819272

[11] Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307-310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8