| Literature DB >> 30687707 |
Christine Lock1, Janell Kwok1, Sumeet Kumar2, Azlina Ahmad-Annuar3, Vairavan Narayanan4, Adeline S L Ng5, Yi Jayne Tan5, Nagaendran Kandiah5,6, Eng-King Tan5,6, Zofia Czosnyka7, Marek Czosnyka7, John D Pickard7, Nicole C Keong1,6.
Abstract
Normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a syndrome comprising gait disturbance, cognitive decline and urinary incontinence that is an unique model of reversible brain injury, but it presents as a challenging spectrum of disease cohorts. Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI), with its ability to interrogate structural white matter patterns at a microarchitectural level, is a potentially useful tool for the confirmation and characterization of disease cohorts at the clinical-research interface. However, obstacles to its widespread use involve the need for consistent DTI analysis and interpretation tools across collaborator sites. We present the use of DTI profiles, a simplistic methodology to interpret white matter injury patterns based on the morphology of diffusivity parameters. We examined 13 patients with complex NPH, i.e., patients with NPH and overlay from multiple comorbidities, including vascular risk burden and neurodegenerative disease, undergoing extended CSF drainage, clinical assessments, and multi-modal MR imaging. Following appropriate exclusions, we compared the morphology of DTI profiles in such complex NPH patients (n = 12, comprising 4 responders and 8 non-responders) to exemplar DTI profiles from a cohort of classic NPH patients (n = 16) demonstrating responsiveness of white matter injury to ventriculo-peritoneal shunting. In the cohort of complex NPH patients, mean age was 71.3 ± 7.6 years (10 males, 2 females) with a mean MMSE score of 21.1. There were 5 age-matched healthy controls, mean age was 73.4 ± 7.2 years (1 male, 4 females) and mean MMSE score was 26.8. In the exemplar cohort of classic NPH patients, mean age was 74.7 ± 5.9 years (10 males, 6 females) and mean MMSE score was 24.1. There were 9 age-matched healthy controls, mean age was 69.4 ± 9.7 years (4 males, 5 females) and mean MMSE score was 28.6. We found that, despite the challenges of acquiring DTI metrics from differing scanners across collaborator sites and NPH patients presenting as differing cohorts along the spectrum of disease, DTI profiles for responsiveness to interventions were comparable. Distinct DTI characteristics were demonstrated for complex NPH responders vs. non-responders. The morphology of DTI profiles for complex NPH responders mimicked DTI patterns found in predominantly shunt-responsive patients undergoing intervention for classic NPH. However, DTI profiles for complex NPH non-responders was suggestive of atrophy. Our findings suggest that it is possible to use DTI profiles to provide a methodology for rapid description of differing cohorts of disease at the clinical-research interface. By describing DTI measures morphologically, it was possible to consistently compare white matter injury patterns across international collaborator datasets.Entities:
Keywords: DTI; MRI; comorbidities; complex; normal pressure hydrocephalus
Year: 2019 PMID: 30687707 PMCID: PMC6335243 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00357
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Clinical characteristics of complex NPH patients.
| NNPH01 | 77 | M | 16 | Gait disturbance, memory impairment, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, IHD, multifactorial dementia, CKD |
| NNPH03 | 74 | M | 26 | Predominantly gait disturbance | Hypertension, parkinsonism |
| NNPH04 | 72 | M | 28 | Predominantly gait disturbance | Parkinsonism, previous stroke |
| NNPH05 | 74 | F | 11 | Gait disturbance, memory impairment, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, vascular parkinsonism, dementia |
| NNPH06 | 73 | F | 15 | Gait disturbance, memory impairment, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, vascular dementia, bladder dysfunction |
| NNPH07 | 67 | M | 21 | Gait disturbance, memory impairment, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, lumbar spondylosis, and degenerative disc disease |
| NNPH08 | 71 | M | 28 | Predominantly gait disturbance, mild memory impairment, urinary frequency | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, IHD, SIADH |
| NNPH09 | 81 | M | 29 | Gait disturbance, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, parkinsonism, cervical spondylosis |
| NNPH10 | 67 | M | 20 | Gait disturbance, memory impairment, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, aortic sclerosis, cervical spondylosis |
| NNPH11 | 55 | M | 12 | Gait disturbance, memory impairment, urinary incontinence | Hypertension, Korsakoff's syndrome, behavioral disturbance |
| NNPH12 | 82 | M | 17 | Predominantly gait and cognitive disturbance | Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, IHD, parkinsonism, COPD |
| NNPH13 | 63 | M | 30 | Predominantly gait disturbance, urinary frequency | Hyperlipidaemia, cervical and lumbar spondylosis |
IHD, ischaemic heart disease; CKD, chronic kidney disease; SIADH, Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion; COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Difference in DTI measures between complex NPH and healthy controls.
| FA | % difference between Complex NPH (all) vs. HC | 0.225 | −0.450 | ||
| % difference between Complex NPH responders vs. HC | 2.928 | −0.901 | |||
| % difference between Complex NPH non-responders vs. HC | −1.126 | −0.225 | |||
| MD | % difference between Complex NPH (all) vs. HC | 14.461 | 12.815 | ||
| % difference between Complex NPH responders vs. HC | 9.236 | 11.038 | |||
| % difference between Complex NPH non-responders vs. HC | 17.079 | 13.704 | |||
| L1 | % difference between Complex NPH (all) vs. HC | 14.272 | 12.236 | ||
| % difference between Complex NPH responders vs. HC | 10.310 | 10.270 | |||
| % difference between Complex NPH non-responders vs. HC | 16.261 | 13.210 | |||
| L2and3 | % difference between Complex NPH (all) vs. HC | 15.070 | 13.803 | ||
| % difference between Complex NPH responders vs. HC | 8.525 | 12.212 | |||
| % difference between Complex NPH non-responders vs. HC | 18.334 | 14.599 |
Italics indicate p-values; bold indicate significant p-values at a significance level of 0.05.
Pre-lumbar drain vs. post-lumbar drain DTI; mean (SD).
| FA | NNI Complex NPH (all) | 0.445 (0.021) | 0.442 (0.023) | −0.674 | |
| NNI Complex NPH responders | 0.457 (0.011) | 0.440 (0.019) | −3.720 | ||
| NNI Complex NPH non-responders | 0.439 (0.023) | 0.443 (0.026) | 0.911 | ||
| MD | NNI Complex NPH (all) | 9.530 (0.993) | 9.393 (0.828) | −1.438 | |
| NNI Complex NPH responders | 9.095 (0.404) | 9.245 (0.515) | 1.649 | ||
| NNI Complex NPH non-responders | 9.748 (1.148) | 9.467 (0.973) | −2.883 | ||
| L1 | NNI Complex NPH (all) | 14.420 (1.233) | 14.163 (1.056) | −1.782 | |
| NNI Complex NPH responders | 13.920 (0.529) | 13.915 (0.613) | −0.036 | ||
| NNI Complex NPH non-responders | 14.671 (1.434) | 14.286 (1.240) | −2.624 | ||
| L2and3 | NNI Complex NPH (all) | 7.086 (0.874) | 7.008 (0.728) | −1.101 | |
| NNI Complex NPH responders | 6.683 (0.344) | 6.910 (0.472) | −0.036 | ||
| NNI Complex NPH non-responders | 7.287 (1.006) | 7.057 (0.854) | −2.624 |
Italics indicate p-values; bold indicate significant p-values at a significance level of 0.05.
Figure 1DTI profiles as radar graphs representing differences across classic NPH, complex NPH, and healthy control cohorts. Due to variations in scanning acquisition between collaborator sites, differences in DTI metrics may not be statistically meaningful. However, DTI profiles provide a methodological tool for comparability across cohorts. As NPH patients displayed worsening functional performance along the disease spectrum (for example, mean MMSE = 24.1 vs. 21.1 for classic vs. complex NPH, respectively), their DTI profiles concurrently worsened to match, across all diffusivity measures. The morphology of DTI profiles also matched the performance of healthy controls (mean MMSE = 28.6 vs. 26.8 for Cambridge vs. Singapore healthy controls).
Figure 2DTI profiles as line graphs across classic NPH, complex NPH (responder and non-responder), and healthy control cohorts. Differing NPH patient cohorts and healthy controls could be differentiated by the position of their DTI profiles within the spectrum of diffusivity measures. DTI profiles for Cambridge healthy controls* were the most preserved (highest FA, lowest MD, L1, and L2and3), whereas DTI profiles for complex NPH non-responders† were the most disrupted (lowest FA, highest MD, L1 and L2and3).
Figure 3DTI profiles for complex NPH vs. healthy controls—radar graphs represent percentage (%) differences between pre-intervention patients and controls, differentiated by their post-intervention responses. The larger the DTI radar graph, the greater the differences between patients and controls. This graph demonstrates that compared to healthy controls, DTI profiles for complex NPH responders were more preserved compared to non-responders at baseline.
Figure 4The morphology of DTI responses to CSF drainage—radar graphs represent percentage (%) changes between pre- and post-intervention DTI profiles in patients. The morphology of DTI profiles for complex NPH responders matched that of classic NPH responders, albeit with a differing magnitude of changes. DTI profiles for complex non-responders demonstrated entirely different morphology to responders with either complex or classic NPH.
Figure 5(A) DTI periventricular white matter tractography model. (Above, left) A typical complex NPH responder demonstrating structural integrity despite white matter disruption. (Below, left) A typical complex NPH non-responder demonstrating severe paucity of tracts and white matter damage. (B) DTI profiles (means with standard error bars) for complex NPH responders, non-responders and classic NPH cohorts. Patterns of directional changes in diffusivity measures for complex NPH responders were consistent with classic NPH, whereas directional changes for non-responders were suggestive of atrophy. MR1 = pre-intervention; MR2 = post-intervention.
Figure 6DTI profiles as line graphs comparing NPH cohorts across the spectrum (complex vs. classic NPH). DTI profiles for complex NPH responders mimicked patterns of changes seen in classic NPH patients across all diffusivity measures (green brackets). MR1 = pre-intervention; MR2 = post-intervention.