4.7 Article

Cerebral metabolism in major depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder occurring separately and concurrently

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 159-170

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01123-4

关键词

major depression; obsessive-compulsive disorder; functional neuroimaging; positron emission tomography; hippocampus; thalamus

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH53565A, 1 K23 MH01694-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The frequent comorbidity of major depressive disorder (MDD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) suggests a fundamental relationship between them. We sought to determine whether MDD and OCD have unique cerebral metabolic patterns that remain the same when they coexist as when the), occur independently. Methods: [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) brain scans were obtained on 27 subjects with OCD alone, 27 with MDD alone, 17 with concurrent OCD+MDD, and 17 normal control subjects, all in the untreated state. Regional cerebral glucose metabolism was compared between groups. Results: Left hippocampal metabolism was significantly lower in subjects with MDD alone and in subjects with concurrent OCD+MDD than in control subjects or subjects with OCD alone. Hippocampal metabolism was negatively correlated with depression severity across all subjects. Thalamic metabolism was significantly elevated in OCD alone and in MDD alone. Subjects with concurrent OCD+MDD had significantly lower metabolism in thalamus, caudate, and hippocampus than subjects with OCD alone. Conclusions: Left hippocampal dysfunction was associated with major depressive episodes, regardless of primary diagnosis. Other cerebral metabolic abnormalities found in OCD and MDD occurring separately were not seen when the disorders coexisted. Depressive episodes occurring in OCD patients may be mediated by different basal ganglia-thalamic abnormalities than in primary MDD patients. (C) 2001 Society of Biological Psychiatry.

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