4.6 Article

Disruption of the leptomeningeal blood barrier in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000343

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17H04192] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe leptomeningeal blood-barrier impairment reflected by MRI gadolinium-enhanced lesions in patients with aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G (AQP4-IgG)-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Methods: A retrospective case series of 11 AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD patients with leptomeningeal enhancement (LME) were collected from 5 centers. External neuroradiologists, blinded to the clinical details, evaluated MRIs. Results: LME was demonstrated on postcontrast T1-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images as a sign of leptomeningeal blood-barrier disruption and transient leakage of contrast agent into the subarachnoid space in 11 patients, 6 in the brain and 6 in the spinal cord. The patterns of LME were linear or extensive and were accompanied by periependymal enhancement in 5 cases and intraparenchymal enhancement in all cases. The location of LME in the spinal cord was adjacent to intraparenchymal contrast enhancement with involvement of a median number of 12 (range 5-17) vertebral segments. At the time of LME on MRI, all patients had a clinical attack such as encephalopathy (36%) and/or myelopathy (70%) with median interval between symptom onset and LME of 12 days (range 2-30). LME occurred in association with an initial area postrema attack (44%), signs of systemic infection (33%), or AQP4-IgG in CSF (22%) followed by clinical progression. LME was found at initial clinical presentation in 5 cases and at clinical relapses leading to a diagnosis of NMOSD in 6 cases. Conclusion: This study suggests that altered leptomeningeal blood barrier may be accompanied by intraparenchymal blood-brain barrier breakdown in patients with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD during relapses.

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

4.6
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