4.2 Review

Magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of cerebrovascular reactivity and its relationship to cognition: a systematic review

期刊

BMC NEUROSCIENCE
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12868-018-0421-4

关键词

Cognition; Cerebrovascular reactivity; Vasodilation; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Brain

资金

  1. Barbara Dicker Brain Sciences Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) refers to the responsiveness of cerebral vasculature to vasoactive stimuli. CVR is an indicator of brain health and can be assessed using vasodilatory techniques and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Using such approaches, some researchers have explored the relationship between CVR and cognition; here we systematically review this work. Results: We extracted information pertaining to: (1) study location and design, participant characteristics, sample sizes, (2) design of vascular challenge, end-tidal CO2 (etCO(2)) concentrations (if applicable), (3) MRI protocol, (4) cognitive assessment, (5) CVR values, and outcomes of statistical analyses with cognitive tests. Five studies assessed participants with cognitive impairment compared to controls, one studied patients with multiple sclerosis with or without cognitive impairment compared to controls, one examined patients with moyamoya disease with or without cognitive impairment, two investigated patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and one was a cross-sectional study with younger and older healthy adults. Cognition was typically probed using the MMSE and tests of executive function, while a number of vasodilatory techniques were employed. Conclusion: CVR was associated with cognition in six of ten studies, but heterogeneity of study samples, designs and vasodilatory methods may have a role in the inconsistent findings. We make recommendations for future research that includes use of a multi-domain cognitive assessment and standardised hypercapnic challenge with MRI.

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

4.2
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