4.6 Article

Brain lesions in septic shock: a magnetic resonance imaging study

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 798-806

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0598-y

关键词

septic shock; brain; inflammation; blood-brain barrier

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0001237, G9439390, G0600986] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [G0001237, G9439390, G0600986] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [G0600986, G0001237, G9439390] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Understanding of sepsis-induced brain dysfunction remains poor, and relies mainly on data from animals or post-mortem studies in patients. The current study provided findings from magnetic resonance imaging of the brain in septic shock. Methods: Nine patients with septic shock and brain dysfunction [7 women, median age 63 years (interquartile range 61-79 years), SAPS II: 48 (44-56), SOFA: 8 (6-10)] underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging including gradient echo T1-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2-weighted and diffusion isotropic images, and mapping of apparent diffusion coefficient. Results: Brain imaging was normal in two patients, showed multiple ischaemic strokes in two patients, and in the remaining patients showed white matter lesions at the level of the centrum semiovale, predominating around Virchow-Robin spaces, ranging from small multiple areas to diffuse lesions, and characterised by hyperintensity on FLAIR images. The main lesions were also characterised by reduced signal on diffusion isotropic images and increased apparent diffusion coefficient. The lesions of the white matter worsened with increasing duration of shock and were correlated with Glasgow Outcome Score. Conclusion: This preliminary study showed that sepsis-induced brain lesions can be documented by magnetic resonance imaging. These lesions predominated in the white matter, suggesting increasedblood-brain barrier permeability, and were associated with poor outcome.

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