| Literature DB >> 33515180 |
Nadja Naef1, Ladina Schlosser1,2, Peter Brugger2, Matthias Greutmann3, Angela Oxenius3,4, Flavia Wehrle1,5, Raimund Kottke5,6, Beatrice Latal7,8, Ruth Tuura O'Gorman5,9.
Abstract
Congenital heart disease is the most common birth defect, and patients are at risk for neurodevelopmental impairment and brain abnormalities. Yet, little is known about the link between brain volumes and cognitive function in adults with congenital heart disease. Forty-four patients and 53 controls between 18 and 32 years underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging and cognitive testing, assessed with an intelligence quotient and executive function global score. Associations between brain volumes and cognitive function were calculated using linear models. Cognitive function in patients was within the normal range (intelligence quotient: 97.74 (10.76)). Total brain volume was significantly smaller in patients compared to controls (1067.26 (113.53) vs 1113.04 (97.88) cm3, P < 0.01), irrespective of cardiac factors (heart defect complexity, cyanosis, cardiopulmonary bypass: all P > 0.4). After adjusting for total brain volume, only corpus callosum volume remained significantly smaller (P = 0.03). Smaller total brain volume was associated with poorer overall executive functioning (P = 0.02) and inhibition (P < 0.01), in both patients and controls. The association between total brain volume and overall executive functioning was moderated by parental socioeconomic status (lower socioeconomic status was associated with a stronger association between brain volume and EF; interaction P = 0.03). In adults with congenital heart disease, despite normal intelligence quotient, brain volume alterations persist into adulthood and are related to executive functioning, in particular inhibitory control. Adults coming from low socioeconomic background and with altered brain volumes are especially vulnerable and should thus be followed-up during adulthood to ensure optimal social and educational support.Entities:
Keywords: ACHD; Brain imaging; Brain volume; Congenital heart disease; Executive function
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33515180 PMCID: PMC8500877 DOI: 10.1007/s11682-020-00424-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Imaging Behav ISSN: 1931-7557 Impact factor: 3.978
Subject characteristics of ACHD subjects and controls
| ACHD, | Controls, N = 53 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at assessment (years), M (SD) | 26.71 (3.58) | 25.90 (3.30) | 0.25 |
| Female participants, N (%) | 17 (38.6) | 26 (49.1) | 0.41 |
| Parental SES, Median (IQR)a | 8 (7.75; 10) | 9 (8; 10) | 0.09 |
| School education (years), Median (IQR) | 13.25 (12; 15) | 15.00 (14; 16) | 0.01 |
| IQ, Mean (SD) | 97.74 (10.76) | 104.02 (12.15) | 0.01 |
| EF global score, Mean (SD)b | 50.29 (5.43) | 52.46 (4.13) | 0.03 |
| Inhibition | 48.81 (5.82) | 51.18 (6.95 | 0.08 |
| Working memory | 50.59 (6.25) | 52.83 (6.63) | 0.09 |
| Flexibility | 50.94 (7.73) | 54.05 (6.31) | 0.03 |
| Planningb | 49.15 (13.97) | 49.96 (11.80) | 0.76 |
| Fluency | 50.44 (6.52) | 52.61 (5.21) | 0.07 |
| Heart defect complexity, N (%) | |||
| mild | 15 (33.3) | ||
| moderate | 20 (45.5) | ||
| severe | 9 (20.5) | ||
| Cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, N (%) | 31 (68.9) | ||
| Number of CPBc surgeries, N (%) | |||
| 0 | 13 (29.5) | ||
| 1 | 21 (47.7) | ||
| 2 | 4 (9.1) | ||
| 3 | 6 (13.6) | ||
| ECC timed minutes, Median (IQR) | 137 (65.25; 190.00) | ||
| Age in years at first CPBc surgery, Median (IQR) | 1.18 (0.52; 8.10) | ||
| Univentricular defect, N (%) | 2 (0.5) | ||
| Cyanotic heart defect, N (%) | 13 (29.5) | ||
| Cyanosis at time of assessmente, N (%) | 2 (0.05) |
aeight missing values; bone missing value, ceight missing values; d11 missing values; eSpO2 < 90% at assessment measured by pulse oximetry; SES: Socioeconomic status calculated from parental education; CPB: Cardiopulmonary bypass
Brain volumes of ACHD vs Controls, cm3
| Mean (SD) | ACHD, | Controls, | % Differencea | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total brain volume | 1067.26 (113.53) | 1113.04 (97.88) | −4.11 | 0.006c |
| Cerebellar white matter | 26.99 (3.47) | 28.69 (3.49) | −5.93 | 0.02 |
| Total white matter | 432.62 (59.81) | 461.75 (52.63) | −6.31 | 0.001c |
| Corpus callosum | 2.86 (0.53) | 3.17 (4.49) | −9.88 | <0.001c,d |
| Total gray volume | 608.71 (59.31) | 623.79 (52.58) | −2.42 | 0.08 |
| Cerebrospinal fluid | 23.06 (11.84) | 21.86 (9.89) | 5.50 | 0.72 |
aPercentage difference = (mean volume of controls – mean volume of ACHD)/(mean volume of controls) × 100; bGroup comparison separately calculated with linear regression with age and sex as covariates, individual brain volume as dependent and group as independent variable, not adjusted for total brain volume, 94 degrees of freedom, P-values refer to the predictor group; cOverall model was significant after fdr-correction (all fdr-corrected P-values <.05); dRegression model significant after adjusting for total brain volume (F(4, 92) = 21.12, P < 0.0001, fdr-adjusted P < 0.0001), Effect of group: B = 104, CI: −12.00; −9.26, β = −0.17, P = 0.03); CI: confidence interval
Fig. 1Association of total brain volume with executive function. The linear association of the executive function global score and total brain volume stratified by group (ACHD vs controls) is illustrated. The regression lines have been fitted using linear regression. TBV is positively associated with EF (P = 0.02), but there was no interaction of group with TBV on EF (P = 0.34)
Association of total brain volume with executive function
| EF global score | Inhibition | |||||||
| B | 95% CI | β | B | 95% CI | β | |||
| Total brain volume | ||||||||
| Group | 8.20 | −11.35; 27.74 | 0.84 | 0.41 | 18.92 | −8.54; 44.85 | 1.39 | 0.18 |
| TBV | 0.02 | 0.00; 0.03 | 0.40 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00; 0.05 | 0.44 | 0.008 |
| TBV*group | −0.01 | −0.03; 0.01 | −0.96 | 0.34 | −0.02 | −0.04; 0.01 | −1.47 | 0.15 |
| F (5, 89) = 3.63, | F (5, 91) = 2.902, | |||||||
| Corpus callosum | ||||||||
| Group | 1.36 | −10.63; 13.35 | 0.14 | 0.82 | 11.54 | −4.62; 27.71 | 0.88 | 0.159 |
| CC | 0.43 | −2.86; 3.71 | 0.05 | 0.80 | 5.30 | 1.46; 9.13 | 0.41 | 0.007 |
| CC*group | −0.86 | −4.79; 3.07 | −0.26 | 0.67 | −4.20 | −9.50; 1.09 | −0.94 | 0.119 |
| F (6, 88) = 2.85, | F (5, 91) = 2.924, | |||||||
aadjusted forTBV; B: unstandardized regression coefficients, CI: confidence interval, β: standardized regression coefficients, EF: executive function., TBV: total brain volume, CC: corpus callosum
Fig. 2Interaction of SES with total brain volume on executive function in the combined cohort. The linear association of TBV and SES on the executive function global score. SES was stratified (low: 2–5, medium: 6–8, high: 9–12). There was an interaction of SES with TBV on the EF global score for all subjects (P = 0.03). In participants with high socioeconomic background, SES buffers the effect of a TBV on EF global score