4.7 Article

Improvements in white matter micro-structural integrity of right uncinate fasciculus and left fronto-occipital fasciculus of remitted first-episode medication-naive panic disorder patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 150, 期 2, 页码 330-336

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.04.014

关键词

Escitalopram; Panic disorder; White matter; Uncinate fasciculus; Fronto-occipital fasciculus

资金

  1. Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital Taipei Branch hospital [TCRD-TPE-99-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We designed this study to investigate neural correlates of white matter micro-structural integrity of remitted patients with first-episode, medication-naive and very late-onset panic disorder Method: Twenty-one remitted patients with panic disorder completed treatment course with treatment of escitalopram (dose range around 10-15 mg/d). Twenty-one healthy controls were also enrolled into this study. Patients and controls all received 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging diffusion tensor imaging scanning at baseline and 6th week. We utilized FDT (FMRIB's Diffusion Toolbox v2.0) function of FSL (FMRIB Software Library) to calculate fractional anisotropy (FA). We compared FA values of patients and controls at baseline and 6th week to estimate the changes of FA of remitted patient group and inter-scan bias of controls. FA outputs of remitted patients and controls were compared by independent t test. Results: We found increased FA in some regions of right uncinate fasciculus and left fronoto-occipital fasciculus after remission in patient group (corrected p < 0.05). Reduced FA of other regions of right uncinate fasciculus was still observed in remitted patients when they were compared to the control group. Conclusion: Subtle changes of white matter micro-structural integrity after remission might represent neural correlates of treatment effects for first-episode, medication-naive and very late-onset panic disorder. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据