Why the study?
The study was conducted to analyze publications related to the technique of MRI mapping of cerebrovascular reactivity.
MRI mapping is a safe and noninvasive method for assessing cerebrovascular reactivity, but requires procedural standardization for clinical practice.
Increasing MRI cerebrovascular reactivity mapping publications signal rising interest; leaves open standardized protocols for clinical adoption.
Purpose . To analyze the publications related to the technique of MRI mapping of cerebrovascular reactivity. Materials and methods. We have analyzed 75 publications (4 Russian, 71 foreign), published in the period from 1960 to 2021 years. More than half of these articles were published in the last ten years, with 26 studies – in the period from 2016 to 2021 years. Results . The article systematizes methods for assessing cerebrovascular reactivity and approaches to assessing cerebrovascular reactivity by MRI. The technique of non-enhanced MRI mapping of cerebrovascular reactivity with a hypercapnic challenge is described in detail; alternative vasoactive stimuli are also considered. Issues related to data processing and evaluation of research results were discussed. Conclusion . Impairment of cerebrovascular reactivity plays an important role in the pathogenesis of cerebrovascular diseases. Over the past decades, various radionuclide and ultrasound methods have been widely used to assess cerebrovascular reactivity. In recent years the interest of researchers in MRI as a method of mapping cerebrovascular reactivity has increased significantly. Noninvasiveness, safety, absence of radiation exposure, and good tolerability are the absolute advantages of MRI mapping over other methods of assessing cerebrovascular reactivity. However, the variety of methodological approaches to MRI mapping of cerebrovascular reactivity causes significant variability in the results of the study. Standardization of the procedure should be the first step toward the introduction of MRI mapping of cerebrovascular reactivity into clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nikogosova et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: