BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To identify the differences in overall occurrence, location, and disease burden of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) in patients with sporadic hemiplegic migraine (SHM) and patients with migraine headaches. METHODS: We included patients who met diagnostic criteria proposed by the third International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) for SHM and migraine headache. WMHs were identified using T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery axial sequence and classified based upon the location. The disease burden was assessed using Scheltens visual rating scale. RESULTS: Fifty patients met the diagnostic criteria for SHM and 100 patients for migraine headache. Patients in the study group were similar to the control group in terms of age (47.7 ± 12.2 years vs. 48.17 ± 9.7 years; P = .814) and gender (M: F; 14:36 vs. M: F 25:75; P = .693). WMH were found in 28 (56%) patients with SHM and 44 (44%) in patients with migraine headache. The proportion of patients with WMH was not different between the two groups (P = .166). On univariate analysis, the proportion of patients with WMH in parietal, occipital, and infratentorial regions was higher in patients with SHM. White matter burden determined by visual rating scale and proportion of patients with lesions ≥5 mm in diameter was also significantly higher in patients with SHM. On multivariate analysis, the WMH occurrence in the parietal lobe (P = .043) was found to be significantly higher in SHM. CONCLUSIONS: The WMH occurrence in patients with SHM is significantly more in the parietal lobe when compared to those with migraine headaches. WMH burden was also higher in patients with SHM, and larger white matter lesions occurred more frequently in these patients with SHM (compared to ordinary migraineurs).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To identify the differences in overall occurrence, location, and disease burden of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) in patients with sporadic hemiplegic migraine (SHM) and patients with migraine headaches. METHODS: We included patients who met diagnostic criteria proposed by the third International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) for SHM and migraine headache. WMHs were identified using T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery axial sequence and classified based upon the location. The disease burden was assessed using Scheltens visual rating scale. RESULTS: Fifty patients met the diagnostic criteria for SHM and 100 patients for migraine headache. Patients in the study group were similar to the control group in terms of age (47.7 ± 12.2 years vs. 48.17 ± 9.7 years; P = .814) and gender (M: F; 14:36 vs. M: F 25:75; P = .693). WMH were found in 28 (56%) patients with SHM and 44 (44%) in patients with migraine headache. The proportion of patients with WMH was not different between the two groups (P = .166). On univariate analysis, the proportion of patients with WMH in parietal, occipital, and infratentorial regions was higher in patients with SHM. White matter burden determined by visual rating scale and proportion of patients with lesions ≥5 mm in diameter was also significantly higher in patients with SHM. On multivariate analysis, the WMH occurrence in the parietal lobe (P = .043) was found to be significantly higher in SHM. CONCLUSIONS: The WMH occurrence in patients with SHM is significantly more in the parietal lobe when compared to those with migraine headaches. WMH burden was also higher in patients with SHM, and larger white matter lesions occurred more frequently in these patients with SHM (compared to ordinary migraineurs).