4.7 Article

Clinical characteristics and outcome of brain abscess Systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 82, 期 9, 页码 806-813

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000172

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To establish cerebral metabolic features associated with the A3243G mitochondrial DNA mutation with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (H-1 MRSI) and to assess their potential as prognostic biomarkers. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we investigated 135 clinically heterogeneous A3243G mutation carriers and 30 healthy volunteers (HVs) with H-1 MRSI. Mutation carriers included 45 patients with mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke-like episodes (MELAS); 11 participants who would develop the MELAS syndrome during follow-up (converters); and 79 participants who would not develop the MELAS syndrome during follow-up (nonconverters). The groups were compared with respect to MRSI metabolic indices of 1) anaerobic energy metabolism (lactate), 2) neuronal integrity (N-acetyl-l-aspartate [NAA]), 3) mitochondrial function (NAA; lactate), 4) cell energetics (total creatine), and 5) membrane biosynthesis and turnover (total choline [tCho]). Results: Consistent with prior studies, the patients with MELAS had higher lactate (p < 0.001) and lower NAA levels (p = 0.01) than HVs. Unexpectedly, converters showed higher NAA (p = 0.042), tCho (p = 0.004), and total creatine (p = 0.002), in addition to higher lactate levels (p = 0.032), compared with HVs. Compared with nonconverters, converters had higher tCho (p = 0.015). Clinically, converters and nonconverters did not differ at baseline. Lactate and tCho levels were reliable biomarkers for predicting the risk of individual mutation carriers to develop the MELAS phenotype. Conclusions: H-1 MRSI assessment of cerebral metabolism in A3243G mutation carriers shows promise in identifying disease biomarkers as well as individuals at risk of developing the MELAS phenotype.

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

4.7
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