4.3 Article

Cerebral Neurovascular Coupling Impairment in Central Serous Chorioretinopathy

期刊

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 4, 页码 446-454

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000509553

关键词

Central serous chorioretinopathy; CSC; Neurovascular coupling; Cerebrovascular regulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the cerebrovascular regulation integrity in CSCR patients and found that they had impaired cerebral neurovascular coupling compared to controls, suggesting a potential systemic vascular dysfunction.
Background: Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) is a chorioretinal disorder resulting from choroidal hyperpermeability. Its comorbidities as hypertension, coronary disease, and psychological stress, suggest that it might reflect a more generalized vascular dysfunction. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the cerebrovascular regulation integrity, using cerebral autoregulation (CA), carbon dioxide vasoreactivity (VR), and neurovascular coupling (NVC) in CSCR. Methods: This observational pilot study included 20 CSCR patients and 14 age- and sex-matched controls. A State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) inquiry was full-filled. Continuous measurement of cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV), arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide was performed. VR was assessed during hypercapnia (inhaling carbogen gas) and hypnocapnia (hyperventilation). For NVC, the CBFV relative increase during mental activation using the N-Back Task was calculated. Results: No significant differences in systemic hemodynamic parameters, CA or VR, were found between both groups. During the NVC performance, the average CBFV rise during mental stress was significantly lower in CSCR (p = 0.011). A significant negative correlation was found between STAI scores and NVC. Conclusions: CSCR patients presented a significantly impaired cerebral NVC compared to controls, supporting the theory of a potential systemic vascular dysfunction. Stress could be related to this NVC impairment.

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

4.3
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