| Literature DB >> 28529871 |
Carlos A Sánchez-Catasús1, Gretel Sanabria-Diaz2, Antoon Willemsen3, Eduardo Martinez-Montes4, Juan Samper-Noa5, Angel Aguila-Ruiz6, Ronald Boellaard3, Peter P De Deyn7, Rudi A J O Dierckx3, Lester Melie-Garcia2.
Abstract
There is growing support that cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) in response to a vasodilatory challenge, also defined as the cerebrovascular reserve, is reduced in Alzheimer's disease dementia. However, this is less clear in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The current standard analysis may not reflect subtle abnormalities in CVR. In this study, we aimed to investigate vasodilatory-induced changes in the topology of the cerebral blood flow correlation (CBFcorr) network to study possible network-related CVR abnormalities in MCI. For this purpose, four CBFcorr networks were constructed: two using CBF SPECT data at baseline and under the vasodilatory challenge of acetazolamide (ACZ), obtained from a group of 26 MCI patients; and two equivalent networks from a group of 26 matched cognitively normal controls. The mean strength of association (SA) and clustering coefficient (C) were used to evaluate ACZ-induced changes on the topology of CBFcorr networks. We found that cognitively normal adults and MCI patients show different patterns of C and SA changes. The observed differences included the medial prefrontal cortices and inferior parietal lobe, which represent areas involved in MCI's cognitive dysfunction. In contrast, no substantial differences were detected by standard CVR analysis. These results suggest that graph theoretical analysis of ACZ-induced changes in the topology of the CBFcorr networks allows the identification of subtle network-related CVR alterations in MCI, which couldn't be detected by the standard approach.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebrovascular reactivity; Graph theoretical; Mild cognitive impairment
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28529871 PMCID: PMC5429238 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.04.019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Sociodemographic and clinical features of control and MCI groups.
| Control ( | MCI ( | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60.9 ± 7.3 | 64.7 ± 6.9 | 0.06 |
| Gender (female/male) | 13/13 | 14/12 | 0.78 |
| Education (years) | 13.6 ± 3.9 | 11.8 ± 4.6 | 0.13 |
| MMSE | 29.3 ± 1.1 | 26.9 ± 1.24 | 10− 6 |
| Hypertension | 27% | 35% | 0.55 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 19% | 23% | 0.73 |
| Diabetes | 15% | 15% | 1 |
| Smoking | 27% | 19% | 0.51 |
Data shown as mean ± SD or percent of subjects.
Student t-tests for independent samples.
Chi-square test.
Fig. 1CBF correlation matrices (CBF correlation networks) constructed using CBF SPECT data at basal and under the acetazolamide (ACZ) challenge for MCI and cognitively normal controls. The color bar indicates the value of the correlation coefficient coming from the CBF co-variations among 90 anatomical brain regions (AAL atlas). For the sake of clarity brain regions of the right (R) and left (L) hemispheres were separated.
Fig. 2CBF changes at the voxel level analyzed by a 2 (group: Control and MCI) × 2 (condition: basal and ACZ) full factorial design using statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Figures A and B show that the control and MCI groups had a similar regional pattern of CBF increase in frontal lobe bilaterally. Figures C and D show that the regional differences between groups were relatively similar in the two conditions, although less extensive in the ACZ condition. No interaction of the group by the condition was found.
Fig. 3Global clustering coefficient (C) and mean strength of association (SA) in the control and MCI groups in the two condition: basal and under the ACZ challenge. The data were generated by bootstrapping the CBF correlation matrices (1000 samples per group and condition). Comparisons were performed by estimating 95% bootstrap confident intervals (see main text for details). *Significant effect.
Simple main effects and interactions of group and condition at the global level.
| Effect | Mean (95% CI) - | Mean (95% CI) - |
|---|---|---|
| ACZ vs. basal (Control) | 0.12 (− 0.90 – + 0.63) | 0.00004 (− 0.02 – + 0.009) |
| ACZ vs. basal (MCI) | − 0.68 (− 1.44 – − 0.97) | − 0.026 (− 0.04 – − 0.01) |
| Control vs. MCI (basal) | − 0.56 (− 1.28 – + 0.16) | − 0.019 (− 0.03 – − 0.003) |
| Control vs. MCI (ACZ) | 0.24 (− 0.61 – + 0.84) | 0.007 (− 0.02 – + 0.02) |
| Interaction | 0.79 (− 0.14 – + 1.75) | 0.03 (+ 0.0006 – + 0.04) |
ACZ, acetazolamide; CI, confident interval.
Significant effect.
Fig. 4Significant differences between condition within-group at the nodal level for the clustering coefficient (C) and mean strength of association (SA) in the control (A–D) and MCI groups (E–H).
Fig. 5Significant differences between group within-condition at the nodal level for the clustering coefficient (C) and mean strength of association (SA) in the basal (A–D) and ACZ conditions (E–H).
Fig. 6Significant crossover interaction effects of group and condition at the nodal level for the clustering coefficient (C) and mean strength of association (SA) with Bonferroni correction (A–D) and without correction (E–H).