Martijn V Verhagen1, Gerard L Guit2, Gerrit Jan Hafkamp3, Kees Kalisvaart3. 1. Department of Radiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Boerhaavelaan 22, 2035 RC, Haarlem, The Netherlands. mverhagen@kg.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Boerhaavelaan 22, 2035 RC, Haarlem, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Geriatrics, Spaarne Gasthuis, Boerhaavelaan 22, 2035 RC, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dementia is foremost a clinical diagnosis. However, in diagnosing dementia, it is advocated to perform at least one neuroimaging study. This has two purposes: to rule out potential reversible dementia (PRD), and to help determine the dementia subtype. Our first goal was to establish if MRI combined with visual rating scales changes the clinical diagnosis. The second goal was to demonstrate if MRI contributes to a geriatrician's confidence in the diagnosis. METHODS: The dementia subtype was determined prior to and after MRI. Scoring scales used were: global cortical atrophy (GCA), medial temporal atrophy (MTA), and white matter hyperintensity measured according to the Fazekas scale. The confidence level of the geriatrician was determined using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients were included. After MRI, the diagnosis changed in 23.7 % (CI 17.0 %-31.1 %) of patients. Change was due to vascular aetiology in 13.3 % of patients. PRD was found in 2.2 % of all patients. The confidence level in the diagnosis increased significantly after MRI (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MRI, combined with visual rating scales, has a significant impact on dementia subtype diagnosis and on a geriatrician's confidence in the final diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • MRI with visual rating scales changes the dementia subtype diagnosis significantly. • MRI is essential in demonstrating vascular disease as a cause of dementia. • All suspected dementia patients should undergo an MRI with visual rating scales. • MRI improves a geriatrician's confidence in the diagnosis of the dementia subtype. • MRI remains essential during the workup of dementia to exclude reversible causes.
OBJECTIVES:Dementia is foremost a clinical diagnosis. However, in diagnosing dementia, it is advocated to perform at least one neuroimaging study. This has two purposes: to rule out potential reversible dementia (PRD), and to help determine the dementia subtype. Our first goal was to establish if MRI combined with visual rating scales changes the clinical diagnosis. The second goal was to demonstrate if MRI contributes to a geriatrician's confidence in the diagnosis. METHODS: The dementia subtype was determined prior to and after MRI. Scoring scales used were: global cortical atrophy (GCA), medial temporal atrophy (MTA), and white matter hyperintensity measured according to the Fazekas scale. The confidence level of the geriatrician was determined using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients were included. After MRI, the diagnosis changed in 23.7 % (CI 17.0 %-31.1 %) of patients. Change was due to vascular aetiology in 13.3 % of patients. PRD was found in 2.2 % of all patients. The confidence level in the diagnosis increased significantly after MRI (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MRI, combined with visual rating scales, has a significant impact on dementia subtype diagnosis and on a geriatrician's confidence in the final diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • MRI with visual rating scales changes the dementia subtype diagnosis significantly. • MRI is essential in demonstrating vascular disease as a cause of dementia. • All suspected dementiapatients should undergo an MRI with visual rating scales. • MRI improves a geriatrician's confidence in the diagnosis of the dementia subtype. • MRI remains essential during the workup of dementia to exclude reversible causes.
Authors: Cleusa P Ferri; Martin Prince; Carol Brayne; Henry Brodaty; Laura Fratiglioni; Mary Ganguli; Kathleen Hall; Kazuo Hasegawa; Hugh Hendrie; Yueqin Huang; Anthony Jorm; Colin Mathers; Paulo R Menezes; Elizabeth Rimmer; Marcia Scazufca Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Hort; J T O'Brien; G Gainotti; T Pirttila; B O Popescu; I Rektorova; S Sorbi; P Scheltens Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: L O Wahlund; F Barkhof; F Fazekas; L Bronge; M Augustin; M Sjögren; A Wallin; H Ader; D Leys; L Pantoni; F Pasquier; T Erkinjuntti; P Scheltens Journal: Stroke Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: D S Knopman; S T DeKosky; J L Cummings; H Chui; J Corey-Bloom; N Relkin; G W Small; B Miller; J C Stevens Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-05-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lorna Harper; Frederik Barkhof; Philip Scheltens; Jonathan M Schott; Nick C Fox Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Juha R Koikkalainen; Hanneke F M Rhodius-Meester; Kristian S Frederiksen; Marie Bruun; Steen G Hasselbalch; Marta Baroni; Patrizia Mecocci; Ritva Vanninen; Anne Remes; Hilkka Soininen; Mark van Gils; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Frederik Barkhof; Timo Erkinjuntti; Jyrki M P Lötjönen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Claes Håkansson; Ashkan Tamaddon; Henrik Andersson; Gustav Torisson; Gustav Mårtensson; My Truong; Mårten Annertz; Elisabet Londos; Isabella M Björkman-Burtscher; Oskar Hansson; Danielle van Westen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 5.315