4.7 Article

Frequency and location of microbleeds in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage

Journal

STROKE
Volume 31, Issue 11, Pages 2665-2669

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.31.11.2665

Keywords

etiology; hemosiderin; intracerebral hemorrhage; magnetic resonance imaging; microcirculation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-MRI is known to detect clinically silent microbleeds (MBs) in patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage (pICH), but the frequency and diagnostic and clinical significance of this finding are still debated. Therefore, we investigated a consecutive series of pICH patients and analyzed the patterns of MB distribution in the context of clinical variables and location of the symptomatic hematoma. Methods-The study population consisted of 109 patients with pICH. There were 59 women and 50 men aged 22 to 91 years (mean 64.6 years). MRI was obtained on a 1.5-T system with use of a gradient-echo T2*-weighted sequence. A cohort of 280 community-dwelling asymptomatic elderly individuals who underwent the same imaging protocol served for comparison. Results-MBs were seen in 59 (54%) patients and ranged in number from 1 to 90 lesions (mean 14, median 6). in the majority of patients, MBs were located simultaneously in various parts of the brain, with a preference for cortical-subcortical regions (39%) and the basal ganglia/thalami (38%). There was some tendency toward a regional association between MB location and the site of the symptomatic hematoma, but we could not discern specific patterns of MB distribution. Logistic regression analysis identified MBs, periventricular hyperintensity grades, and lacunes but not risk factors as independent variables contributing to a correct classification of pICH and control individuals. Conclusions-MBs can be detected in more than half of the patients with pICH and appear to be quite general markers of various types of bleeding-prone microangiopathy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available