4.6 Review

Cerebral microbleeds: from depiction to interpretation

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 92, Issue 6, Pages 598-607

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323951

Keywords

cerebrovascular disease; stroke; cognition; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are hypointense foci visible on MRI sequences, helpful in identifying the nature and severity of chronic small vessel disease. Harmonising MRI parameters is crucial for improving cross-study comparisons.
Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are defined as hypointense foci visible on T2*-weighted and susceptible-weighted MRI sequences. CMBs are increasingly recognised with the widespread use of MRI in healthy individuals as well as in the context of cerebrovascular disease or dementia. They can also be encountered in major critical medical conditions such as in patients requiring extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation. The advent of MRI-guided postmortem neuropathological examinations confirmed that, in the context of cerebrovascular disease, the vast majority of CMBs correspond to recent or old microhaemorrhages. Detection of CMBs is highly influenced by MRI parameters, in particular field strength, postprocessing methods used to enhance T2* contrast and three dimensional sequences. Despite recent progress, harmonising imaging parameters across research studies remains necessary to improve cross-study comparisons. CMBs are helpful markers to identify the nature and the severity of the underlying chronic small vessel disease. In daily clinical practice, presence and numbers of CMBs often trigger uncertainty for clinicians especially when antithrombotic treatments and acute reperfusion therapies are discussed. In the present review, we discuss those clinical dilemmas and address the value of CMBs as diagnostic and prognostic markers for future vascular events.

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