4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Vascular volume and blood-brain barrier permeability measured by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in hippocampus and cerebellum of patients with MCI and normal controls

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 695-700

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20669

关键词

blood-brain barrier (BBB); BBB permeability; cerebrovascular abnormality; dynamic contrast enhanced MRI; mild cognitive impairment; vascular volume

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00827] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-019681, R01 AG17066, R01 AG017066, R01 AG019681, P50 AG16573, P50 AG016573] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To measure the cerebrovascular volume and blood-brain barrier (131313) permeability indices in hippocampus and cerebellum of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), and compare to that of normal controls. Materials and Methods: A total of 11 MCI subjects and 11 healthy elderly controls participated in this prospective study. DCE-MRI was performed to measure the contrast enhancement kinetics. The early enhancement percentage (at 50 seconds after injection) was defined as the vascular volume index, and the ratio between the four to five-minute enhancement relative to the 50-second enhancement was defined as the 131313 permeability index. Results: The enhancement kinetics measured from hippocampus of MCI individuals demonstrated a lower magnitude and slower decay than healthy controls, suggesting that they had a smaller vascular volume (significant in the right side; P < 0.001) and a higher BBB permeability (not reaching significance level). The vascular volume index was significantly correlated with naming ability (P 0.05). Conclusion: These results suggest that changes in cerebrovasculature may occur in hippocampus of MCI. DCE-MRI may provide a noninvasive means to measure the subtle BBB leakage associated with the cerebrovascular pathology commonly found in Alzheimer's disease.

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

4.7
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