4.7 Article

CNS involvement at the onset of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 78, 期 15, 页码 1150-1156

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0b013e31824f800a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Jeffrey Modell Foundation
  2. The Robert A Good/Jeffrey Modell Fellowship
  3. INSERM
  4. ERC
  5. Association Francaise contre les myopathies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To differentiate onset of CNS involvement in primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) from that of other CNS inflammatory diseases and to identify early symptoms linked to abnormal cognitive outcome. Methods: Forty-six children with primary HLH who had neurologic evaluation within 2 weeks and brain MRI within 6 months of diagnosis were included. Initial symptoms, CSF study, brain MRI, and neurologic outcome were assessed. Brain MRIs were compared with those of 44 children with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Results: At disease onset, 29 children (63%) had neurologic symptoms and 7 (15%) had microcephaly. Twenty-three (50%) children had abnormal CSF study, but only 15 (33%) had abnormal brain MRI. The latter showed that patients with HLH, unlike patients with ADEM, had symmetric periventricular lesions, without thalamic and brainstem involvement and with infrequent hyposignal intensity on T1. At the end of follow-up (3.6 +/- 3.6 years), 17 of the 28 (61%) surviving patients had normal neurologic status, 5 (18%) had a severe neurologic outcome, and 6 (21%) had mild cognitive difficulties. Abnormal neurologic outcome was not influenced by age or type of genetic defect, but by the presence of neurologic symptoms, MRI lesions, or abnormal CSF study at onset. Early clinical and MRI symptoms may regress after treatment. Conclusion: Neurologic symptoms are frequent at the onset of primary HLH and are mostly associated with abnormal CSF findings, but with normal brain MRI. In cases of abnormal brain MRI, the observed lesions differ from those of ADEM. Neurology (R) 2012;78:1150-1156

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