| Literature DB >> 30665428 |
Robert B Hamilton1,2,3, Fabien Scalzo1,3, Kevin Baldwin1, Amber Dorn4, Paul Vespa5, Xiao Hu1,2, Marvin Bergsneider1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) hydrodynamics using cine phase-contrast MRI in the cerebral aqueduct and the prepontine cistern between three distinct groups: pre-shunt normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) patients, post-shunt NPH patients, and controls. We hypothesized that the hyperdynamic flow of CSF through the cerebral aqueduct seen in NPH patients was due to a reduction in cisternal CSF volume buffering. Both hydrodynamic (velocity, flow, stroke volume) and peak flow latency (PFL) parameters were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Aqueduct of Sylvius; Cerebral compliance; Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF); Normal pressure hydrocephalus; Phase contrast MRI (PC-MRI); Prepontine CISTERN
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30665428 PMCID: PMC6341759 DOI: 10.1186/s12987-019-0122-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS ISSN: 2045-8118
Fig. 1Left) Midsagittal T2-weighted image, flow acquisition planes for (1) cerebral aqueduct and (2) prepontine cistern. Planes were defined perpendicular to CSF flow. Center top) Example of cerebral aqueduct (T2 TruFisp) with the region of interest for the flow quantification outlined in red. Center Bottom) Example of the phase contrast sequence for the cerebral aqueduct during peak caudal CSF flow. Right top) Example of prepontine cistern (T2 TruFisp) with the region of interest for the flow quantification outlined in red and the basilar artery highlighted in yellow. Right bottom) Example of the phase contrast sequence for the prepontine cistern during peak caudal CSF flow
The quantitative results from the pre-shunt NPH and healthy control groups for both the aqueduct and prepontine cistern
| Area (mm2) | Caudal max velocity (cm/s) | Cranial max velocity (cm/s) | Caudal mean flow (mL/min) | Cranial mean flow (mL/min) | SV (μL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueduct | ||||||
| Pre-shunt | 8.0 [3.4]** | 12.8 [8.3]* | 8.4 [5.8]* | 0.32 [0.23]** | 0.26 [0.18]** | 124.5 [94.5]** |
| Control | 4.9 [1.7] | 7.9 [4.5] | 5.9 [2.2] | 0.12 [0.07] | 0.09 [0.04] | 49.7 [32.3] |
| Cistern | ||||||
| Pre-shunt | 58.6 [63.8] | 6.3 [3.5] | 4.9 [3.5] | 0.78 [0.31] | 0.43 [0.31] | 293.5 [157.6] |
| Control | 69.6 [22.0] | 5.7 [1.8] | 4.3 [1.9] | 0.73 [0.35] | 0.41 [0.22] | 299.0 [171.5] |
Significant differences between NPH and control denoted by *(p < 0.05) and **(p < 0.001). For each metric the median [iqr] is shown. SV stroke volume
Fig. 2Violin plots for the comparison between the pre-treatment NPH group and controls: a Aqueductal caudal mean flow. b Aqueduct stroke volume. c Cisternal caudal mean flow. d Cisternal stroke volume. **p < 0.001
Fig. 3Comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment stroke volume in a aqueduct and b prepontine cistern. The decrease in aqueduct stroke volume was significant *p < 0.05
The quantitative results from the pre- and post-shunt NPH groups for both the aqueduct and cistern
| Area (mm2) | Caudal max velocity (cm/s) | Cranial max velocity (cm/s) | Caudal mean flow (mL/min) | Cranial mean flow (mL/min) | SV (μL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueduct | ||||||
| Pre-shunt | 8.2 [3.3]* | 12.5 [9.7] | 9.5 [5.6] | 0.42 [0.33]** | 0.31 [0.23]** | 144.6 [127.6]** |
| Post-shunt | 7.8 [4.3] | 10.9 [4.5] | 6.6 [2.6] | 0.19 [0.17] | 0.15 [0.13] | 76.8 [55.1] |
| Cistern | ||||||
| Pre-shunt | 58.0 [80.1] | 5.4 [4.1] | 4.7 [2.1] | 0.83 [0.30] | 0.41 [0.31] | 297.4 [99.4] |
| Post-shunt | 54.3 [78.7] | 5.1 [4.8] | 4.7 [5.2] | 0.82 [0.64] | 0.46 [0.41] | 346.5 [309.3] |
Significant differences denoted by *(p < 0.05) and **(p < 0.01) from the paired Wilcoxon signed rank. For each metric the median [iqr] are shown
Fig. 4Mean uncalibrated flow curves (voxel intensity) over the cardiac cycle. Top) aqueduct and bottom) prepontine cistern for the pre-treatment and control groups. The curves are the average of the polynomial fit (6th degree) of the entire group (SD also shown as shaded region). The difference seen between the peak latency (defined as the minimum point of the curve) is significantly shorter (p < 0.01) in the pre-treatment group than in the control group for the prepontine cistern. The objective of this figure is to show the phase change during the cardiac cycle
p-value from the Mann–Whitney Rank sum comparing pre-treatment NPH and control patients for prepontine cistern peak flow latency
| Percentage of low-correlated voxels removed from the ROI | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of fit | 1% | 10% | 25% | 50% | 75% | 90% | 95% |
| No poly fit | 0.076 | 0.076 | 0.061 | 0.107 | 0.040 | 0.094 | 0.061 |
| 4 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| 5 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 6 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009* | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 7 | 0.023 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.025 | 0.023 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| 8 | 0.044 | 0.036 | 0.044 | 0.044 | 0.029 | 0.009 | 0.067 |
| 9 | 0.036 | 0.036 | 0.044 | 0.040 | 0.029 | 0.011 | 0.067 |
| 10 | 0.066 | 0.055 | 0.036 | 0.044 | 0.036 | 0.011 | 0.116 |
For the analysis a six degree polynomial was used to fit the flow data and the top 25% of the voxels were used in the calculation (represents 75% of the low-correlated voxels being removed) p value shown with an *.The “No Poly Fit” row contains the results excluding any polynomial fitting