4.7 Article

Isolated blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier dysfunction: prevalence and associated diseases

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 252, 期 9, 页码 1067-1073

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-005-0817-9

关键词

blood-CSF barrier; albumin quotient; isolated barrier dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective An isolated dysfunction of the blood-CSF barrier is characterised by an abnormal elevation of the albumin CSF/serum concentration ratio (Q(alb)) without any other pathological CSF findings. Although common in routine CSF analysis, the clinical significance of an isolated barrier dysfunction frequently remains unclear. We examined neurological disorders associated with an isolated elevation of Q(alb) to identify possible determinants of blood-CSF barrier dysfunction. Methods 367 patients (124 women, 243 men, median age 60. 0 years) out of 3873 patients receiving diagnostic lumbar puncture at the University Hospital of Ulm (Germany) showed an isolated dysfunction of the blood-CSF barrier. Clinical data as well as MRI findings of these patients were analysed. Results Isolated barrier dysfunction occurred most frequently (> 30%) in Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH), lumbar spinal stenosis, and polyneuropathy (PNP). In patients who showed no other evidence of neurological disease, isolated barrier dysfunction was found in 14. 9% of cases. The extent of barrier dysfunction was most prominent in brain tumours, GBS, and CIDP. There was a significant correlation of Q(alb) with both weight and body mass index (BMI). Conclusions Although isolated barrier dysfunction may be found in a variety of neurological diseases, it is especially frequent in GBS, CIDP, NPH, spinal canal stenosis, and PNP. In these patients, disease-related mechanisms contributing to barrier dysfunction are likely. Moreover, barrier function seems to be influenced by disease-independent determinants like weight and BMI.

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