4.5 Review

The Use of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Evaluation of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Traumatic Brain Injury: What Is the Evidence?

Journal

BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11060775

Keywords

traumatic brain injury; dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; blood brain barrier; review

Categories

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korean government [NRF-2019M3E5D1A02069399]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reviewed previous research on evaluating BBB disruption following TBI using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and the findings support the potential of utilizing DCE-MRI for detecting BBB disruption.
(1) Background: Blood brain barrier (BBB) disruption following traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in a secondary injury by facilitating the entry of neurotoxins to the brain parenchyma without filtration. In the current paper, we aimed to review previous dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) studies to evaluate the occurrence of BBB disruption after TBI. (2) Methods: In electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library), we searched for the following keywords: dynamic contrast-enhanced OR DCE AND brain injury. We included studies in which BBB disruption was evaluated in patients with TBI using DCE-MRI. (3) Results: Four articles were included in this review. To assess BBB disruption, linear fit, Tofts, extended Tofts, or Patlak models were used. K-Trans and v(e) were increased, and the values of v(p) were decreased in the cerebral cortex and predilection sites for diffusion axonal injury. These findings are indicative of BBB disruption following TBI. (4) Conclusions: Our analysis supports the possibility of utilizing DCE-MRI for the detection of BBB disruption following TBI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available