| Literature DB >> 21336807 |
Madoka Nakajima1, Masakazu Miyajima, Ikuko Ogino, Maki Watanabe, Haruko Miyata, Kostadin L Karagiozov, Hajime Arai, Yoshiaki Hagiwara, Tatsuya Segawa, Kyoko Kobayashi, Yasuhiro Hashimoto.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting can improve symptoms of elderly patients' idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). However, adjunctive means for confirming the diagnosis remain unavailable. We have previously reported the specific increase of leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein (LRG) in iNPH CSF, and the present study investigates its potential clinical applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21336807 PMCID: PMC3098968 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-011-0963-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) ISSN: 0001-6268 Impact factor: 2.216
Grading scale for normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH)a
| Grade | Definition |
|---|---|
| Gait disturbance | |
| 0 | Normal |
| 1 | Unstable, but independent gait |
| 2 | Walking with one cane |
| 3 | Walking with two canes or a walker frame |
| 4 | Walking not possible |
| Dementia | |
| 0 | Within normal range |
| 1 | No apparent dementia but apathetic |
| 2 | Socially dependent but independent at home |
| 3 | Partially dependent at home |
| 4 | Totally dependent |
| Urinary incontinence | |
| 0 | Absent |
| 1 | Absent but with pollakisuria or urinary urgency |
| 2 | Sometimes at night |
| 3 | Sometimes even during the day |
| 4 | Frequent |
aEstablished by the Research Committee on Intractable Hydrocephalus, Ministry of Health and Welfare of Japan, 1996. The grades of gait disturbance, dementia, and urinary incontinence are added to obtain the total grade, ranging from 0 to 12. (Mori et al. From Ref. 23)
Fig. 1SR shunt responder, SNR shunt nonresponder. Levels of CSF LRG (A), tau protein (B) ratio in studied groups. Each blue circle represents shunt responders and red triangles represent the shunt nonresponder individual. Horizontal lines indicate median values. a Correlation between LRG and SR and SNR. LRG levels were found to be significantly higher in the SR group (96.8 ± 44.6 ng/ml [mean ± SD]) than the SNR group (29.2 ± 35.1 ng/ml; **p < 0.01). b Correlation between tau and SR and SNR. Tau protein levels in the CSF did not significantly differ between the SR group (167.4 ± 105.4 pg/ml) and the SNR group (264.9 ± 209.5 pg/ml; p > 0.05)
Fig. 2LRG and total tau protein levels in tap tests 90 cases. a Scatter plot of the CSF LRG and total tau protein levels in 90 patients who underwent tap tests. Each white circle represents tap test-positive patients and the yellow square represents tap test-negative patients. The tau protein kit used in the present study (Innotest hTAU-Ag; Innogenetics) recommends the cut-off value for clinical manifestation at 200 pg/ml of tau in the CSF (the solid line). b Scatter plot of the CSF LRG and total tau protein levels in 52 patients who underwent shunt replacement. Each white circle represents shunt responders, and the red triangle represents the shunt nonresponder individual. ROC curve analysis indicated that the optimum cut-offs (solid line) for SR vs. SNR was 67 ng/ml for LRG
Fig. 3ROC curve analysis for LRG in CSF for differentiation of SR from SNR. ROC curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) and SE calculated using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The cut-off is given for sensitivity + specificity maximized for SR vs. SNR. The optimum cut-off was 67 ng/ml for LRG(□). AUC and SE are 0.792 and 0.078, respectively
Patient groups according to LRG and TAU levels
| Group | TAU < 200 pg/ml | TAU ≥ 200 pg/ml |
|---|---|---|
| LRG ≥ 67 ng/ml | A | B |
| LRG < 67 ng/ml | C | D |
Evaluation of tap test and shunt response by group
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRG ≥ 67 ng/ml, tau <200 pg/ml | LRG ≥ 67 ng/ml, tau ≥ 200 pg/ml | LRG <67 ng/ml, tau <200 pg/ml | LRG <67 ng/ml, tau ≥ 200 pg/ml | |
| Tap test-positive ( | 31/34 (91.2%) | 15/21 (71.4%) | 15/24 (62.5%) | 6/11 (54.2%) |
| Shunt responder ( | 22/22 (100%) | 10/11 (90.9%) | 6/13 (46.2%) | 2/6 (33%) |
Cognitive outcomes (52 patients with shunt placement)
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMSE pre (±SE ) | 22.05 (±0.96) | 17.62 (±2.03) | 22.06 (±1.25) | 17.25 (±4.55) |
| 12 months after (±SE ) | 25.65 (±0.85) | 21.62 (±1.96) | 24.29 (±1.23) | 17.75 (±4.50) |
| Mean of difference (±SE) | 3.6 (±0.76) | 4.0 (±1.25) | 2.23 (±0.55) | 0.5 (±0.87) |
| CC | 0.656 | 0.806 | 0.905 | 0.982 |
|
| ** | ** | ** | |
| FAB pre (±SE ) | 11.38 (±0.68) | 9.25 (±1.15) | 12.0 (±0.72) | 11.33 (±1.86) |
| 12 months after (±SE ) | 13.08 (±0.57) | 10.5 (±1.59) | 12.87 (±0.72) | 12.33 (±1.20) |
| post - pre mean (±SE ) | 1.69 (±0.57) | 1.25 (±0.86) | 0.87 (±0.41) | 1.0 (±2.0) |
| CC | 0.6 | 0.852 | 0.836 | 0.573 |
|
| * |
MMSE mini mental state examination, FAB frontal association battery
SE standard error, CC correlation coefficient
P value; p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**