4.7 Article

Monitoring disease progression in CADASIL with diffusion magnetic resonance imaging - A study with whole brain histogram analysis

期刊

STROKE
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 2902-2908

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000041681.25514.22

关键词

CADASIL; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-In cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), a large increase in water diffusion has been found both inside and outside the cerebral lesions as detected on conventional MRI. The aim of the present study was to assess the sensitivity of diffusion tensor imaging for monitoring the progression of cerebral tissue damage during the course of CADASIL. Methods-With the use of diffusion tensor imaging, whole brain trace of the diffusion tensor [Trace(D)] histograms were obtained in 22 CADASIL patients and 12 age-matched controls at baseline, in 14 patients after a mean delay of 21 months, and in 5 controls after a mean delay of 29 months. Parameters derived from these histograms (mean value, peak height, and peak location) were analyzed at baseline and during the follow-up. Results-At baseline, all the histogram parameters differed between patients and controls and were found to be significantly correlated with both the Mini-Mental State Examination score and Rankin Scale score in the patient group. The follow-up study showed a decrease in the peak height associated with an increase in the mean value of whole brain Trace(D) histograms in the 14 CADASIL patients scanned twice. The diffusion changes appeared larger in the patients whose Rankin score increased during the study period. Conclusions-These results suggest that the measurement of water diffusion over time is a sensitive marker for the progression of tissue damage in the brain. Thus, quantitative diffusion MRI can be used to monitor disease progression in CADASIL and possibly in other types of small-vessel brain disorders.

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