Loading…

Neuromyelitis optica does not impact periventricular venous density versus healthy controls: a 7.0 Tesla MRI clinical study

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 subject...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Magma (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2016-06, Vol.29 (3), p.535-541
Main Authors: Schumacher, Sophie, Pache, Florence, Bellmann-Strobl, Judith, Behrens, Janina, Dusek, Petr, Harms, Lutz, Ruprecht, Klemens, Nytrova, Petra, Chawla, Sanjeev, Niendorf, Thoralf, Kister, Ilya, Paul, Friedemann, Ge, Yulin, Wuerfel, Jens, Sinnecker, Tim
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 T 2 *-weighted (T 2 *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.
ISSN:0968-5243
1352-8661
DOI:10.1007/s10334-016-0554-3