4.5 Article

MRI assessment of the effects of acetazolamide and external lumbar drainage in idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

期刊

FLUIDS AND BARRIERS OF THE CNS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12987-015-0004-z

关键词

Normal pressure hydrocephalus; Acetazolamide; External lumbar drainage; MRI; DTI; ASL

资金

  1. NIH [R01NS052122]
  2. Leon Levy Foundation - Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health) [U01 AG024904]
  3. DOD ADNI (Department of Defense) [W81XWH-12-2-0012]
  4. National Institute on Aging
  5. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  6. Alzheimer's Association
  7. Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
  8. Araclon Biotech
  9. BioClinica, Inc.
  10. Biogen Idec Inc.
  11. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  12. Eisai Inc.
  13. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  14. Eli Lilly and Company
  15. EuroImmun
  16. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
  17. Genentech, Inc.
  18. Fujirebio
  19. GE Healthcare
  20. IXICO Ltd.
  21. Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.
  22. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.
  23. Medpace, Inc.
  24. Merck Co., Inc.
  25. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.
  26. NeuroRx Research
  27. Neurotrack Technologies
  28. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  29. Pfizer Inc.
  30. Piramal Imaging
  31. Servier
  32. Synarc Inc.
  33. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
  34. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective was to identify changes in quantitative MRI measures in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) occurring in common after oral acetazolamide (ACZ) and external lumbar drainage (ELD) interventions. Methods: A total of 25 iNPH patients from two clinical sites underwent serial MRIs and clinical assessments.Eight received ACZ (125-375 mg/ day) over 3 months and 12 underwent ELD for up to 72 hours.Five clinically-stable iNPH patients who were scanned serially without interventions served as controls for the MRI component of the study.Subjects were divided into responders and non-responders to the intervention based on gait and cognition assessments made by clinicians blinded to MRI results.The MRI modalities analyzed included T1-weighted images,diffusion tensor Imaging (DTI) and arterial spin labelling (ASL) perfusion studies.Automated threshold techniques were used to define regions of T1 hypo-intensities. Results: Decreased volume of T1-hypointensities and decreased mean diffusivity (MD) within remaining hypointensities was observed after ACZ and ELD but not in controls.Patients responding positively to these interventions had more extensive decreases in T1-hypointensites than non-responders: ACZ-responders (4,651 +/- 2,909 mm(3)),ELD responders (2,338 +/- 1,140 mm(3)),ELD non-responders (44 +/- 1,188 mm(3)).Changes in DTI MD within T1-hypointensities were greater in ACZ-responders (7.9% +/- 2%) and ELD-responders (8.2% +/- 3.1%) compared to ELD non-responders (2.1% +/- 3%).All the acetazolamide-responders showed increases in whole-brain-average cerebral blood flow (wbCBF) estimated by ASL (18.8% +/- 8.7%).The only observed decrease in wbCBF (9.6%) occurred in an acetazolamide-non-responder.A possible association between cerebral atrophy and response was observed,with subjects having the least cortical atrophy (as indicated by a positive z-score on cortical thickness measurements) showing greater clinical improvement after ACZ and ELD. Conclusions: T1-hypointensity volume and DTI MD measures decreased in the brains of iNPH patients following oral ACZ and ELD.The magnitude of the decrease was greater in treatment responders than non-responders.Despite having different mechanisms of action,both ELD and ACZ may decrease interstitial brain water and increase cerebral blood flow in patients with iNPH.Quantitative MRI measurements appear useful for objectively monitoring response to acetazolamide,ELD and potentially other therapeutic interventions in patients with iNPH.

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

4.5
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