| Literature DB >> 29785359 |
Thaddeus Haight1, R Nick Bryan2, Guray Erus2, Meng-Kang Hsieh2, Christos Davatzikos2, Ilya Nasrallah2, Mark D'Esposito3, David R Jacobs4, Cora Lewis5, Pamela Schreiner4, Stephen Sidney6, Osorio Meirelles1, Lenore J Launer7.
Abstract
Objective: We examined imaging surrogates of white matter microstructural abnormalities which may precede white matter lesions (WML) and represent a relevant marker of cerebrovascular injury in adults in midlife.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebrovascular disease; Diffusion tensor imaging; Hypertension
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29785359 PMCID: PMC5959740 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.02.032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.891
Study characteristics.
| N | 698 |
| Age, years | 50 (3.5) |
Range | 42–56 |
| Gender: Male | 47.6 |
| Race: Black | 39.7 |
| College education | 49.1 |
| Smoking status | |
Former | 23.6 |
Current | 15.6 |
| Hypertension status | |
Prehypertension | 26.0 |
Hypertension | 28.9 |
| Systolic BP, mmHg | 118 (15) |
Range | 85–206 |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg | 74 (11) |
Range | 43–118 |
| Diabetes | 9.3 |
| Dyslipidemia | 36.6 |
| TBV, cm3 | 1105 (122) |
Range | 724–1510 |
| WM volume, cm3 | 492 (69) |
Range | 298–760 |
| Total WML volume, cm3 | 0.13 [0.06,0.32] |
Range | 0.00–21.24 |
Abbreviations: BP, blood pressure; TBV, total brain volume excluding the cerebellum; WML, white matter lesions.
Mean(SD) or %.
0–9 Missing values for different covariates.
50th[25th,75th] percentiles.
Fig. 1Distribution of WML for different WM tracts in left hemisphere (plots a, c, e) and right hemisphere (plots b, d, f) based on frequency, absolute lesion volume, and relative lesion volume (as % of total tract volume). A full description of WM tract ROIs is provided in Supplemental Table 1. Supplemental Table 2 includes numeric results of ordered ROIs that correspond with the plots where tracts with highest to lowest values of each metric (e.g. WML volume) are shown.
Unadjusted mean differences in FA summarized across white matter tract ROIs for different group comparisonsa.
| Comparisons | Group 1 | Group 2 | Mean difference | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAWM (No lesion group “Group 1”) vs. | 0.380 (0.038) | 0.375 (0.040) | 0.004 (0.002, 0.006) | <0.001 |
| NAWM (Lesion group “Group 1”) | 0.375 (0.040) | 0.292 (0.110) | 0.101 (0.059, 0.143) | <0.001 |
| NAWM (Normotensive “Group 1”) | 0.382 (0.038) | 0.382 (0.037) | 0.000 (−0.001, 0.001) | 0.514 |
| NAWM (Normotensive “Group 1”) | 0.382 (0.038) | 0.376 (0.041) | 0.005 (0.004, 0.007) | <0.001 |
| NAWM (Normotensive “Group 1”) | 0.382 (0.039) | 0.383 (0.036) | −0.001 (−0.002, 0.001) | 0.059 |
| NAWM (Normotensive “Group 1”) | 0.382 (0.039) | 0.378 (0.040) | 0.004 (0.003, 0.005) | <0.001 |
FA, fractional anisotropy; NAWM, normal appearing white matter; WML, white matter lesions.
“No lesion group” represents subjects without lesions in given tracts and “lesion group” represents subjects with lesions in these same tracts. Mean differences were assessed at level of each tract and summarized for the 42 tracts. “All subjects” represents all subjects in the study with all tracts included. “Subjects without lesions in tracts” represents all subjects in the study with tracts containing lesions excluded.
See Supplemental Tables 3–5 for mean differences for individual tract data.
Comparison based on 39 tracts (excluded 2 tracts which had no lesions and 1 tract where a lesion occurred for 1 subject only).
Comparison based on 42 tracts.
Group number reflects order in which group appear in “Comparisons” column. Mean and SD calculations were summarized for WM Tract ROIs by: , X2,…, X)/N and SD() = Sqrt()2/N-1), where Xi represents mean FA for a given tract.
Mean difference (Δ) and estimation of 95% confidence interval takes into account differences in SE of different tracts (See Supplemental Tables 3–5). Weights were calculated from inverse SEs and applied to each tract. Confidence intervals were adjusted for multiple testing using False Discovery Rate.
P-values based on t-test of mean difference and adjusted for multiple testing using False Discovery Rate.
Adjusted associations of FA in NAWM, prehypertension and hypertension summarized across white matter tract ROIs.
| All subject tracts | All subject tracts without lesions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | 95% CI | P-value | Coefficient | 95% CI | P-value | |
| Model 1 | ||||||
| Intercept | 0.382 | 0.379, 0.385 | <0.001 | 0.375 | 0.372, 0.378 | <0.001 |
| Prehypertension | 0.001 | −0.003, 0.004 | 0.720 | 0.002 | −0.002, 0.006 | 0.423 |
| Hypertension | −0.006 | −0.010, −0.003 | 0.001 | −0.006 | −0.010, −0.002 | 0.004 |
| Model 2 | ||||||
| Intercept | 0.379 | 0.374, 0.383 | <0.001 | 0.371 | 0.366, 0.376 | <0.001 |
| Prehypertension | 0.000 | −0.003, 0.004 | 0.823 | 0.001 | −0.004, 0.005 | 0.781 |
| Hypertension | −0.005 | −0.009, −0.001 | 0.016 | −0.005 | −0.009, 0.000 | 0.037 |
| Model 3 | ||||||
| Intercept | 0.379 | 0.375, 0.383 | 0.001 | NA | NA | NA |
| Prehypertension | 0.001 | −0.003, 0.004 | 0.745 | NA | NA | NA |
| Hypertension | −0.005 | −0.009, −0.001 | 0.023 | NA | NA | NA |
| % WML | −0.003 | −0.004, −0.002 | 0.001 | NA | NA | NA |
Model coefficients and 95% CI based on repeated measures regression (See Methods for details).
Model 1: Adjustment for study center only.
Model 2: Adjustment for age, sex, race, education, smoking status, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and study center.
Model 3: Model 2 + adjustment for %WML (i.e. relative % lesion in each tract).
Results are summarized over white matter tracts in 698 subjects each with 42 white matter tracts (n = 29,316).
Results are summarized over white matter tracts in 698 subjects with tracts that exclude lesions (n = 22,384).
Intercept represents the mean FA associated with reference values of the variables in the different models.
Coefficients represents the difference in mean FA associated with prehypertension and hypertension, respectively, compared to normotension.
Coefficient represents the difference in mean FA associated with a + 1% difference in %WML.
Fig. 2Adjusted mean differences in NAWM FA (95% CI) for different hypertensive groups (No Trt = not treated; Ctl-N = treated and controlled at normotensive levels; Ctl-P = treated and controlled at prehypertensive levels; NoCtl = treated and uncontrolled) relative to normotensive subjects across WM tracts. A test for linear trend was found to be significant between the different groups. A similar relationship was observed between the different groups after restricting the analysis to WM tracts without lesions.