| Popis: |
Background One of the primary biomechanical factors influencing arterial health is their deformation across the cardiac cycle, or cyclic strain, which is often associated with arterial stiffness. Deleterious changes in the cardiovascular system, e.g., increased arterial stiffness, can remain undetected until the system is challenged, such as under a cardiac stressor like dobutamine. Purpose To quantify cyclic strain in mice at different locations along the arterial tree prior to and during dobutamine infusion, while evaluating the effects of sex and age. Study Type Control/cohort study. Animal Model Twenty C57BL/6 mice; male, female; ∼12 and 24 weeks of age; n = 5 per group. Field Strength/Sequence 7T; CINE MRI with 12 frames, velocity compensation, and prospective cardiac gating. Assessment Prior to and during the infusion of dobutamine, Green–Lagrange circumferential cyclic strain was calculated from perimeter measurements derived from CINE data acquired at the carotid artery, suprarenal and infrarenal abdominal aorta, and iliac artery. Statistical Tests Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post‐hoc tests was used to evaluate the influence of dobutamine, anatomical location, sex, and age. Results Heart rates did not differ between groups prior to or during dobutamine infusion (P = 0.87 and P = 0.08, respectively). Dobutamine increased cyclic strain in each group. Within a group, increases in strain were similar across arteries. At the suprarenal aorta, strain was reduced in older mice at baseline (young 27.6 > mature 19.3%, P = 0.01) and during dobutamine infusion (young 53.0 > mature 36.2%, P = 0.005). In the infrarenal aorta, the response (dobutamine – baseline) was reduced in older mice (young 21.9 > mature 13.5%, P = 0.04). Data Conclusion Dobutamine infusion increases circumferential cyclic strain throughout the arterial tree of mice. This effect is quantifiable using CINE MRI. The results demonstrate that strain prior to and during dobutamine is influenced by anatomical location, sex, and age. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:69–80. |
Plný text