4.7 Article

Neurological signs in relation to type of cerebrovascular disease in vascular dementia

期刊

STROKE
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 317-322

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.493353

关键词

MRI; neurological signs; vascular dementia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of a number of neurological signs in a large population of patients with vascular dementia (VaD) and to compare the relative frequency of specific neurological signs dependent on type of cerebrovascular disease. Methods-Seven hundred six patients with VaD (NINDS-AIREN) were included from a large multicenter clinical trial (registration number NCT00099216). At baseline neurological examination, the presence of 16 neurological signs was assessed. Based on MRI, patients were classified as having large vessel VaD (18%; large territorial or strategical infarcts on MRI), small vessel VaD (74%; white matter hyperintensities [WMH], multiple lacunes, bilateral thalamic lesions on MRI), or a combination of both (8%). Results-A median number of 4.5 signs per patient was presented (maximum 16). Reflex asymmetry was the most prevalent symptom (49%), hemianopia was most seldom presented (10%). Measures of small vessel disease were associated with an increased prevalence of dysarthria, dysphagia, parkinsonian gait disorder, rigidity, and hypokinesia and as well to hemimotor dysfunction. By contrast, in the presence of a cerebral infarct, aphasia, hemianopia, hemimotor dysfunction, hemisensory dysfunction, reflex asymmetry, and hemiplegic gait disorder were more often observed. Conclusions-The specific neurological signs demonstrated by patients with VaD differ according to type of imaged cerebrovascular disease. Even in people who meet restrictive VaD criteria, small vessel disease is often seen with more subtle signs, including extrapyramidal signs, whereas large vessel disease is more often related to lateralized sensorimotor changes and aphasia.

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