Neuromyelitis optica does not impact periventricular venous density versus healthy controls: a 7.0 Tesla MRI clinical study
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
Grant support
R01 NS029029
NINDS NIH HHS - United States
R01 NS076588
NINDS NIH HHS - United States
PubMed
27072685
DOI
10.1007/s10334-016-0554-3
PII: 10.1007/s10334-016-0554-3
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- 7T MRI, Multiple sclerosis, Neuromyelitis optica, Ultrahigh-field MRI, Venous density,
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Cohort Studies MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging * MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Brain diagnostic imaging pathology MeSH
- Neuromyelitis Optica diagnostic imaging pathology MeSH
- Multiple Sclerosis diagnostic imaging pathology MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Case-Control Studies MeSH
- Veins diagnostic imaging pathology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the periventricular venous density in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease (NMOSD) in comparison to that in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthy control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with NMOSD, 16 patients with MS and 16 healthy control subjects underwent 7.0-Tesla (7T) MRI. The imaging protocol included T2*-weighted (T2*w) fast low angle-shot (FLASH) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences. The periventricular venous area (PVA) was manually determined by a blinded investigator in order to estimate the periventricular venous density in a region of interest-based approach. RESULTS: No significant differences in periventricular venous density indicated by PVA were detectable in NMOSD versus healthy controls (p = 0.226). In contrast, PVA was significantly reduced in MS patients compared to healthy controls (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Unlike patients with MS, those suffering from NMOSD did not show reduced venous visibility. This finding may underscore primary and secondary pathophysiological differences between these two distinct diseases of the central nervous system.
Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine Berlin Germany
Department of Neurology Asklepios Fachklinikum Teupitz Teupitz Germany
Department of Neurology Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Germany
Department of Neurology Multiple Sclerosis Care Center NYU School of Medicine New York NY USA
Department of Neurology Universitätsspital Basel Basel Switzerland
Department of Radiology NYU School of Medicine New York NY USA
Institute of Neuroradiology Universitätsmedizin Göttingen Göttingen Germany
Medical Image Analysis Center AG Basel Switzerland
NeuroCure Clinical Research Center Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Germany
See more in PubMed
Mult Scler Int. 2013;2013:398259 PubMed
Neurology. 2015 Jul 14;85(2):177-89 PubMed
J Exp Med. 2005 Aug 15;202(4):473-7 PubMed
JAMA Neurol. 2015 Jul;72(7):815-22 PubMed
EPMA J. 2015 Aug 27;6(1):16 PubMed
Invest Radiol. 2009 Sep;44(9):491-4 PubMed
PLoS Med. 2007 Apr;4(4):e133 PubMed
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302 PubMed
Neurology. 2015 Mar 17;84(11):1165-73 PubMed
Ann Neurol. 2016 Feb;79(2):206-16 PubMed
J Neuroinflammation. 2012 Jan 19;9:14 PubMed
Clin Exp Immunol. 2014 May;176(2):149-64 PubMed
J Neurol Sci. 2007 Aug 15;259(1-2):16-20 PubMed
Mult Scler. 2013 Mar;19(3):316-25 PubMed
Mult Scler. 2014 Aug;20(9):1189-97 PubMed
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Jan;31(1):76-9 PubMed
J Neurol Sci. 2014 Oct 15;345(1-2):172-5 PubMed
J Neuroradiol. 2012 Dec;39(5):295-300 PubMed
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 May;29(5):1190-4 PubMed
Neurology. 2012 Aug 14;79(7):708-14 PubMed
J Neurol. 2014 Jan;261(1):1-16 PubMed
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52 PubMed
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012 Mar;32(3):403-12 PubMed
Neurology. 2015 Apr 7;84(14):1465-72 PubMed
Radiology. 1997 Jul;204(1):272-7 PubMed
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 Feb;51(2):260-5 PubMed
