OBJECTIVES: To evaluate demographics, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures, and vascular risk among mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Both clinics and the community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 153 subjects with MCI, 218 cognitively normal older individuals (controls), and 68 patients with Alzheimer disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification of subjects with MCI according to current subtype diagnostic convention based on neuropsychological performance, estimates of vascular risk based on medical history, research MRI unless there was a specific contraindication, and apolipoprotein E genotype. RESULTS: Of the 153 subjects with MCI, 65 were diagnosed with amnestic single-domain, 46 with amnestic multiple-domain, 27 with nonamnestic single-domain, and 15 with nonamnestic multiple-domain MCI. Analyses of control, MCI, and Alzheimer disease cases revealed significant differences in brain and hippocampal volumes between each group. Post hoc analyses of MRI measures among the MCI subtypes found that patients with amnestic single-domain MCI had significantly less brain atrophy and that hippocampal volume differed significantly from controls for the 2 amnestic forms of MCI. Apolipoprotein E genotype prevalence was significantly greater in the amnestic and nonamnestic subtypes of MCI. Conversely, the nonamnestic subtypes were more likely to have increased vascular risk and to be African American. CONCLUSIONS: Amnestic forms of MCI appear to have demographic, genetic, and MRI findings suggestive of Alzheimer disease pathology, whereas the nonamnestic forms of MCI have findings suggestive of vascular disease. Importantly, however, all subjects with MCI showed evidence of brain injury, and the biological differences among subtypes are relatively subtle beyond the memory vs nonmemory groupings.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate demographics, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures, and vascular risk among mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Both clinics and the community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 153 subjects with MCI, 218 cognitively normal older individuals (controls), and 68 patients with Alzheimer disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification of subjects with MCI according to current subtype diagnostic convention based on neuropsychological performance, estimates of vascular risk based on medical history, research MRI unless there was a specific contraindication, and apolipoprotein E genotype. RESULTS: Of the 153 subjects with MCI, 65 were diagnosed with amnestic single-domain, 46 with amnestic multiple-domain, 27 with nonamnestic single-domain, and 15 with nonamnestic multiple-domain MCI. Analyses of control, MCI, and Alzheimer disease cases revealed significant differences in brain and hippocampal volumes between each group. Post hoc analyses of MRI measures among the MCI subtypes found that patients with amnestic single-domain MCI had significantly less brain atrophy and that hippocampal volume differed significantly from controls for the 2 amnestic forms of MCI. Apolipoprotein E genotype prevalence was significantly greater in the amnestic and nonamnestic subtypes of MCI. Conversely, the nonamnestic subtypes were more likely to have increased vascular risk and to be African American. CONCLUSIONS: Amnestic forms of MCI appear to have demographic, genetic, and MRI findings suggestive of Alzheimer disease pathology, whereas the nonamnestic forms of MCI have findings suggestive of vascular disease. Importantly, however, all subjects with MCI showed evidence of brain injury, and the biological differences among subtypes are relatively subtle beyond the memory vs nonmemory groupings.
Authors: J C Morris; S Edland; C Clark; D Galasko; E Koss; R Mohs; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; A Heyman Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: F Forette; M L Seux; J A Staessen; L Thijs; W H Birkenhäger; M R Babarskiene; S Babeanu; A Bossini; B Gil-Extremera; X Girerd; T Laks; E Lilov; V Moisseyev; J Tuomilehto; H Vanhanen; J Webster; Y Yodfat; R Fagard Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-10-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J He; V S S Wong; E Fletcher; P Maillard; D Y Lee; A-M Iosif; B Singh; O Martinez; A E Roach; S N Lockhart; L Beckett; D Mungas; S T Farias; O Carmichael; C DeCarli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jessica M Foley; David H Salat; Nikki H Stricker; Tyler A Zink; Laura J Grande; Regina E McGlinchey; William P Milberg; Elizabeth C Leritz Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: María Eugenia López; Pilar Garcés; Pablo Cuesta; Nazareth P Castellanos; Sara Aurtenetxe; Ricardo Bajo; Alberto Marcos; Mercedes Montenegro; Raquel Yubero; Francisco del Pozo; Miguel Sancho; Fernando Maestú Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2014-06
Authors: Jessica M Foley; David H Salat; Nikki H Stricker; Regina E McGlinchey; William P Milberg; Laura J Grande; Elizabeth C Leritz Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 2.035