4.6 Article

Comparison of cerebral blood flow and structural penumbras in relation to white matter hyperintensities: A multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 36, Issue 9, Pages 1528-1536

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X16651268

Keywords

Arterial spin labeling; cerebral blood flow; diffusion tensor imaging; vascular cognitive impairment; magnetic resonance imaging; aging

Funding

  1. NIH [1RO1AG036772, P30 AG008017, RO1 AG024059]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) surrounding WMHs is associated with decreased structural integrity and perfusion, increased risk of WMH growth, and is referred to as the WMH penumbra. Studies comparing structural and cerebral blood flow (CBF) penumbras within the same individuals are lacking, however, and would facilitate our understanding of mechanisms resulting in WM damage. This study aimed to compare both CBF and structural WMH penumbras in non-demented aging. Eighty-two elderly volunteers underwent 3T-MRI including fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), pulsed arterial spin labeling and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). A NAWM layer mask was generated for periventricular and deep WMHs. Mean CBF, DTI-fractional anisotropy (DTI-FA), DTI-mean diffusivity (DTI-MD) and FLAIR intensity for WMHs and its corresponding NAWM layer masks were computed and compared against its mean within total brain NAWM using mixed effects models. For both periventricular and deep WMHs, DTI-FA, DTI-MD and FLAIR intensity changes extended 2-9mm surrounding WMHs (p0.05), while CBF changes extended 13-14mm (p0.05). The CBF penumbra is more extensive than structural penumbras in relation to WMHs and includes WM tissue both with and without microstructural changes. Findings implicate CBF as a potential target for the prevention of both micro and macro structural WM damage.

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