4.6 Article

Altered T2*relaxation time of the hippocampus in major depressive disorder: Implications of ultra-high field magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 44, Issue 14, Pages 881-886

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.02.014

Keywords

T2*relaxation time; Ultra-high field magnetic resonance; imaging; 7.0T MRI; Major depressive disorder; MDD; Hippocampus

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technolog [20090083324]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies with 1.5 T or 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have produced mixed results regarding the structural changes of the hippocampus in major depressive disorder (MDD). Subtle region-specific hippocampal tissue changes might be more sensitively detected by measuring the T2* relaxation time (T2*-RT) by ultra-high-field (UHF) MRI, as it provides much higher contrast and sensitivity and consequently greater resolution. We assessed the T2*-RTs of hippocampal sub-regions in 16 MDD patients (9 with recurrent MOD) and 16 control subjects using an UHF 7.0 T MRI system. T2*-RTs of CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4, and subiculum were calculated for both left and right hippocampus. MDD patients had significantly longer T2*-RTs in the right CA1 and subiculum than control subjects. Patients with recurrent MDD had significantly longer T2*-RTs in the right subiculum than those experiencing a first depressive episode, and longer T2*-RTs in the right CA1, CA3, and subiculum than control subjects. Values for T2*-RTs of the right CA3 were significantly correlated with illness duration. In conclusion, we report that T2*-RTs in the right subiculum and CA1 were increased in patients with MOD, especially in cases of recurrent MDD. These findings suggest that region-specific hippocampal damage may be occurring in recurrent depression. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available