4.6 Review

Blood and CSF biomarkers in brain subcortical ischemic vascular disease: Involved pathways and clinical applicability

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2015.68

关键词

brain ischemia; cerebrospinal fluid; cerebrovascular diseases; vascular cognitive impairment; white matter disease

资金

  1. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias [PI10/0705, CM10/00063, CP09/136]
  2. Catalonian Society of Hypertension
  3. Catedra-UAB Novartis de Medicina de Familia and IDIAP Jordi Gol
  4. Fundacio Josep Palau Francas
  5. Spanish stroke research network INVICTUS [RD12/0014/0005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular dementia is the second most common type of dementia after Alzheimer's disease (AD). Subcortical ischemic vascular disease refers to a form of vascular cognitive impairment characterized by the presence of diffuse white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) and multiple lacunar infarcts. These neuroimaging findings are mainly caused by cerebral small-vessel disease (cSVD) and relate to aging and cognitive impairment, but they can also be silent and highly prevalent in otherwise healthy individuals. We aimed to review studies on blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers related to the presence of WMHs and lacunar infarcts that have been conducted in the past in large population-based studies and in high-risk selected patients (such as those with vascular risk factors, vascular cognitive impairment, or AD). Relevant associations with the presence and progression of cSVD have been described in the blood for markers related to inflammatory processes, endothelial damage and coagulation/fibrinolysis processes, etc. Also, different combinations of CSF markers might help to differentiate between etiologic types of dementia. In the future, to translate these findings into clinical practice and use biomarkers to early diagnosis and monitoring vascular cognitive impairment would require the replication of candidate markers in large-scale, multicenter, and prospectively designed studies.

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

4.6
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