OBJECTIVES: Many multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions develop around small veins that are surrounded by perivenular inflammatory cells, but whether veins in the brains of people with MS are smaller or larger than similar veins in healthy volunteers or people with other neurologic diseases remains unknown. This question can be addressed by high-resolution, high-field-strength MRI. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study performed on a standard 3 T clinical scanner, we acquired whole-brain T2*-weighted images with 0.55 mm isotropic voxels and reconstructed the courses of deep and superficial veins within the white matter. We compared the apparent diameters of intralesional and perilesional veins to those of extralesional MS veins, veins in healthy volunteers, and veins in individuals with other neurologic diseases. RESULTS: We studied veins in 19 MS cases, 9 healthy volunteers, and 8 individuals with other neurologic diseases, analyzing a total of 349 veins. The mean diameter of intralesional veins (0.76 ± 0.14 mm) was smaller than that of perilesional (1.18 ± 0.13 mm; p < 0.001) and extralesional (1.13 ± 0.14 mm; p < 0.001) veins, regardless of lesion size and location. Perilesional and extralesional MS veins were larger than non-MS veins (0.94 ± 0.14 mm; p < 0.001), and intralesional MS veins were smaller (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The small apparent size of intralesional MS veins may reflect compression by the perivascular inflammatory cuff within active lesions or hardening of the vascular wall in chronic lesions. The finding that extralesional veins are larger than similar veins in non-MS lesions may result from diffuse disease-related processes.
OBJECTIVES: Many multiple sclerosis (MS) lesions develop around small veins that are surrounded by perivenular inflammatory cells, but whether veins in the brains of people with MS are smaller or larger than similar veins in healthy volunteers or people with other neurologic diseases remains unknown. This question can be addressed by high-resolution, high-field-strength MRI. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study performed on a standard 3 T clinical scanner, we acquired whole-brain T2*-weighted images with 0.55 mm isotropic voxels and reconstructed the courses of deep and superficial veins within the white matter. We compared the apparent diameters of intralesional and perilesional veins to those of extralesional MS veins, veins in healthy volunteers, and veins in individuals with other neurologic diseases. RESULTS: We studied veins in 19 MS cases, 9 healthy volunteers, and 8 individuals with other neurologic diseases, analyzing a total of 349 veins. The mean diameter of intralesional veins (0.76 ± 0.14 mm) was smaller than that of perilesional (1.18 ± 0.13 mm; p < 0.001) and extralesional (1.13 ± 0.14 mm; p < 0.001) veins, regardless of lesion size and location. Perilesional and extralesional MS veins were larger than non-MS veins (0.94 ± 0.14 mm; p < 0.001), and intralesional MS veins were smaller (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The small apparent size of intralesional MS veins may reflect compression by the perivascular inflammatory cuff within active lesions or hardening of the vascular wall in chronic lesions. The finding that extralesional veins are larger than similar veins in non-MS lesions may result from diffuse disease-related processes.
Authors: Yulin Ge; Vahe M Zohrabian; Etin-Osa Osa; Jian Xu; Hina Jaggi; Joseph Herbert; E Mark Haacke; Robert I Grossman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Emma C Tallantyre; Paul S Morgan; Jennifer E Dixon; Ali Al-Radaideh; Matthew J Brookes; Nikos Evangelou; Peter G Morris Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: P Zamboni; R Galeotti; E Menegatti; A M Malagoni; G Tacconi; S Dall'Ara; I Bartolomei; F Salvi Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Assunta Dal-Bianco; Simon Hametner; Günther Grabner; Melanie Schernthaner; Claudia Kronnerwetter; Andreas Reitner; Clemens Vass; Karl Kircher; Eduard Auff; Fritz Leutmezer; Karl Vass; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: María I Gaitán; Pietro Maggi; Jillian Wohler; Emily Leibovitch; Pascal Sati; Ismael L Calandri; Hellmut Merkle; Luca Massacesi; Afonso C Silva; Steven Jacobson; Daniel S Reich Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Varun Sethi; Govind Nair; Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; Arun Venkataraman; Joan Ohayon; Tianxia Wu; Kelly Yang; Colin Shea; Blake E Dewey; Irene Cm Cortese; Daniel S Reich Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Refaat E Gabr; Amol S Pednekar; Arash Kamali; John A Lincoln; Flavia M Nelson; Jerry S Wolinsky; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 4.668