4.6 Article

Aging effects on cerebral blood and cerebrospinal fluid flows

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1563-1572

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600462

关键词

aging; CBF; CSF; PC-MRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) is a noninvasive reliable technique, which enables quantification of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and total cerebral blood flows (tCBF). Although it is used to study hydrodynamic cerebral disorders in the elderly group (hydrocephalus), there is no published evaluation of aging effects on both tCBF and CSF flows, and on their mechanical coupling. Nineteen young (mean age 27 +/- 4 years) and 12 elderly (71 +/- 9) years) healthy volunteers underwent cerebral MRI using 1.5T scanner. Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging pulse sequence was performed at the aqueductal and cervical levels. Cerebrospinal fluid and blood flow curves were then calculated over the cardiac cycle, to extract the characteristic parameters: mean and peak flows, their latencies, and stroke volumes for CSF (cervical and aqueductal) and vascular flows. Total cerebral blood flow was (P<0.01) decreased significantly in the elderly group when compared with the young subjects with a linear correlation with age observed only in the elderly group (R-2 = 0.7; P= 0.05). Arteriovenous delay was preserved with aging. The CSF stroke volumes were significantly reduced in the elderly, at both aqueductal (P<0.01) and cervical (P<0.05) levels, whereas aqueduct/cervical proportion (P= 0.9) was preserved. This is the first work to study aging effects on both CSF and vascular cerebral flows. Data showed (1) tCBF decrease, (2) proportional aqueductal and cervical CSF pulsations reduction as a result of arterial loss of pulsatility, and (3) preserved intracerebral compliance with aging. These results should be used as reference values, to help understand the pathophysiology of degenerative dementia and cerebral hydrodynamic disorders as hydrocephalus.

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