4.4 Article

Assessment of functional and structural damage in brain parenchyma in patients with vitamin B12 deficiency: A longitudinal perfusion and diffusion tensor imaging study

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 537-543

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2015.02.012

关键词

Vitamin B12; Cerebral blood flow (CBF); Pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling (PCASL); Brain

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India [BT/IN/German/04/RKG/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Vitamin B12 deficiency may cause neural tissue damage. Even in advanced stages, conventional imaging of brain usually appears normal in vitamin B12 deficient patients. The aim of this study was to assess the structural and functional changes in brain of patients with vitamin B12 deficiency before and after six weeks of vitamin B12 supplementation using diffusion tensor imaging and pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling (PCASL). Methods: MR imaging including DTI and PCASL and neuropsychological tests (NPT) were performed in 16 patients with vitamin B12 deficiency and 16 controls before and after 6 weeks of therapy. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) derived from PCASL and DTI indices was calculated in brain of patients with vitamin B12 deficiency and controls. Results: Patient with vitamin B12 deficiency showed altered neuropsychological scores and altered CBF as well as fractional anisotropy (FA) values in various brain regions as compared with controls. Both CBF values and neuropsychological scores showed complete reversibility at 6 weeks post therapy. Though FA values showed significant recovery, it failed to show complete recovery. Conclusion: Our results suggest that micro-structural recovery lags behind functional recovery in patients with vitamin B12 deficiency following therapy and CBF change may be used as an early predictor of complete recovery in patients with B12 deficiency. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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