4.5 Article

Asymptomatic ventriculomegaly with features of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus on MRI (AVIM) in the elderly: A prospective study in a Japanese population

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 277, 期 1-2, 页码 54-57

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2008.10.004

关键词

Normal pressure hydrocephalus; MRI; Preclinical stage; Asymptomatic; Cohort study; Population-based study; Ventriculomegaly; iNPH

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated if there are individuals at a preclinical stage of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) in a general population. All the residents (n=1142) aged 61 years (n=306, men/women =156/150) and 70-72 years (n=836, men/women=356/480) in the two communities of Japan were requested to take brain MRI examination. The iNPH features on MRI were defined as an Evans index of >0.3 and a narrowing of the subarachnoid space and cortical sulci at the high convexity of the cerebrum. Possible iNPH was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms of iNPH, together with such MRI features. 790 (69.2%) of the 1142 residents participated in this study. Among them, 51 individuals (tnen/women=35/16) (6.46%) had the enlarged ventricles (Evans index of >0.3), 12 (men/women=7/5) (1.52%) of which showed the iNPH features on MRI. Of the 12 individuals, 8 (men/women=4/4) (1.01%) were asymptomatic, while 4 (men/woman=3/1) (0.51%) had gait disturbance and/or dementia (possible iNPH). During a follow-up period of 4-8 years, two of the 8 asymptomatic subjects developed dementia and/or gait disturbance with worsening of ventriculomegaly on brain MR] in one case. The prevalence of possible iNPH was 0.51% (4/790) among Japanese elderly (>61 years of age). Asymptomatic ventriculomegaly with the iNPH features on MRI (AVIM) may represent a preclinical stage of iNPH. (C) 2008 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

4.5
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