Quantificação do fluxo portal em indivíduos sadios: comparação entre ressonância magnética e ultra-som Doppler

• Autor(a) principal: Costa, Juliana Dantas da [UNIFESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2008
• Outros Autores: Leão, Alberto Ribeiro de Souza [UNIFESP], Santos, José Eduardo Mourão [UNIFESP], Moulin, Danilo Sales [UNIFESP], Sebastianes, Patrícia Moreno [UNIFESP], D'Ippolito, Giuseppe [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
• dARK ID: ark:/48912/001300000rjrm
• DOI: 10.1590/S0100-39842008000400004
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-39842008000400004; http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/4488
• topic: Portal blood flow; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasonography; Fluxo portal; Imagem por ressonância magnética; Ultra-sonografia

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the inter-observer agreement between Doppler ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the quantification of portal blood flow in healthy individuals, as well as evaluating the reproducibility of both methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, transverse, observational and self-paired study was developed evaluating 20 healthy volunteers whose portal blood flow was measured by means of Doppler ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging performed by two independent observers. Interobserver and intermethod agreements were calculated using the intraclass and Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The agreement between Doppler ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was low (intraclass coefficient: 1.9%-18.2%; Pearson's coefficient: 0.1%-13.7%; p=0.565). Mean values for the portal blood flow measured by Doppler ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were respectively 0.768 l/min and 0.742 l/min. Interobserver agreement for quantification of the portal blood flow by Doppler ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was respectively reasonable (intraclass coefficient: 43.3%; Pearson's coefficient: 43.0%) and excellent (intraclass coefficient: 91.4%; Pearson's coefficient: 93.4%). CONCLUSION: In the present study, magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated to be a reliable method for quantifying the portal blood flow, with a higher interobserver agreement than Doppler ultrasonography. The intermethod agreement was low.