4.4 Article

Absence of haemodynamic refractory effects in patients with migraine without aura - an interictal fMRI study

Journal

CEPHALALGIA
Volume 31, Issue 11, Pages 1220-1231

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102411415881

Keywords

Migraine without aura; interictal; BOLD-fMRI; haemodynamic refractory effects

Funding

  1. Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT-Vlaanderen) [SB-51437/53437]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In healthy controls, haemodynamic refractory effects are observed with blood-oxygenation-level dependent (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI): the haemodynamic response function (HRF) to the second stimulus in a pair of stimuli with short interstimulus interval (ISI) shows a decreased amplitude and an increased time-to-peak. We hypothesize that there may be interictal haemodynamic abnormalities in migraineurs. Methods: An event-related fMRI design with paired face stimuli and varying ISIs was used to measure interictal HRFs in the face recognition area of patients with migraine without aura (MwoA) and controls. Net responses to the second stimulus in a pair were calculated and averaged per participant. Several characterizing parameters of the net responses were quantified and examined within each group. Results: Refractory effects were not observed in our patient group. There are no changes in the net responses compared with the reference situation in patients, irrespective of the ISI, whereas in controls all HRF parameters are decreased or delayed for an ISI of 1 second. Conclusion: This is the first fMRI study investigating the haemodynamic refractory effects in MwoA patients. Unlike in controls, these effects are not observed in migraineurs. Although currently unclear, it is tempting to speculate that this observation reflects the neurovascular correlate of lack of habituation measured with evoked potentials in migraineurs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available