OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to study the cerebral pathophysiology of eclampsia with the noninvasive technique of magnetic resonance imaging to compare the ability of magnetic resonance imaging to detect cerebral abnormalities in eclampsia with that of computed tomography. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-four patients with eclampsia received both magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic scanning. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of the magnetic resonance imaging was abnormal and 33% of the computed tomography was abnormal. This higher incidence of abnormal magnetic resonance imaging scans was present in spite of the fact that they were obtained significantly longer after the patient's seizure activity. The most common abnormalities were cortisol, subcortical, and white matter edema. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic scan abnormalities in eclampsia are usually similar. Cerebral imaging is not necessary in patients with uncomplicated eclampsia.
OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to study the cerebral pathophysiology of eclampsia with the noninvasive technique of magnetic resonance imaging to compare the ability of magnetic resonance imaging to detect cerebral abnormalities in eclampsia with that of computed tomography. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-four patients with eclampsia received both magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic scanning. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of the magnetic resonance imaging was abnormal and 33% of the computed tomography was abnormal. This higher incidence of abnormal magnetic resonance imaging scans was present in spite of the fact that they were obtained significantly longer after the patient's seizure activity. The most common abnormalities were cortisol, subcortical, and white matter edema. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic scan abnormalities in eclampsia are usually similar. Cerebral imaging is not necessary in patients with uncomplicated eclampsia.
Authors: Edi Vaisbuch; Janice E Whitty; Sonia S Hassan; Roberto Romero; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; David B Cotton; Yoram Sorokin; S Ananth Karumanchi Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 8.661