4.7 Article

Prospective follow-up of 33 asymptomatic patients with familial cerebral cavernous malformations

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 57, 期 10, 页码 1825-1828

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.57.10.1825

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM) is one of the most common vascular malformations of the CNS. Familial CCM are increasingly diagnosed, but little is known about their natural history, especially in asymptomatic patients. Objective: To determine the degree of spontaneous evolution of familial CCM in a population of 33 symptom-free patients. Methods: During a previous national survey, the authors analyzed the clinical and MRI features of 173 patients from 57 unrelated French families, including 73 asymptomatic subjects. Of these 73 subjects, 33 prospectively underwent two serial clinical and MRI examinations. Cerebral MRI systematically included spin echo and gradient echo sequences. Occurrence of clinical symptoms and MRI changes of CCM, namely, hemorrhage, change in signal intensity, change in size, and appearance of new lesions, were recorded by means of comparison of the first and last MRI examinations. Results: The 33 patients (234 CCM, mean 7.1 lesions/subject, range 1 to 85 lesions/subject) were followed during a mean period of 2.1 years (range 0.5 to 4.5 years). Two patients became symptomatic: One presented with brainstem. hemorrhage and one with partial seizure. Comparison of the two serial MR images found changes in 15 patients (46%): 1) Bleeding occurred in three type II lesions (1.3%) in three patients (9.1%); 2) 30 new lesions appeared in 10 patients (30.3%); 3) change in signal intensity was observed in one lesion (0.4%) in one patient (3%); and 4) increase in size was observed in four lesions (1.7%) in three patients (9.1%). Conclusions: This prospective study confirms the dynamic nature of CCM. The appearance of new lesions in 30% of patients has to be retained as a hallmark of the familial condition.

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