| Literature DB >> 35906550 |
Yu Tu1, Wenyan Zhuo1, Jiewei Peng1, Rong Huang1, Baizhu Li1, Yuqi Liu1, Chengtao Zhang1, Xiuli Zeng2, Li'an Huang3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The widespread use of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has revealed the correlation between enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS) and cognitive impairment (CI). However, few studies have examined the correlation between MRI-visible EPVS and CI in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and vascular parkinsonism (VaP). This study explored how the number and main location of EPVS in PD and VaP are correlated with the occurrence of CI in these diseases to provide radiology markers and other evidence for early clinical diagnosis in a Chinese cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive impairment; Enlarged perivascular spaces; Parkinson’s disease; Vascular parkinsonism; White matter hyperintensity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35906550 PMCID: PMC9336003 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-022-02819-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.903
Study participants and baseline characteristics in the PD, VaP, and control groups; M (P25-P75)
| Variable | PD group ( | VaP group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male, n (%) | 15 (57.70) | 14 (73.70) | 19 (59.40) | 0.496 |
| Age, years | 62.00 (57.50–69.25)△ | 75.00 (69.00–80.00)△# | 48.50 (37.50–57.00) | < 0.001*** |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 11 (42.30) | 12 (63.20)△ | 8 (25.00) | 0.026* |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 6 (23.10)△ | 6 (31.60)△ | 0 (0.00) | 0.005** |
| History of stroke, n (%) | 5 (19.20)△ | 7.00 (36.80)△ | 0 (0.00) | 0.002** |
| History of CAD, n (%) | 3 (11.50) | 3.00 (15.80) | 0 (0.00) | 0.086 |
| Cigarette smoking, n (%) | 1 (3.80) | 4.00 (21.10) | 8 (25.00) | 0.087 |
| Alcoholism history, n (%) | 5 (19.20) | 1.00 (5.30) | 4 (12.50) | 0.385 |
| Education levels: completed secondary school or more, n (%) | 20 (76.92) | 11.00 (57.89)△ | 31 (96.90) | 0.003** |
| BG-EPVS numbers | 8.00 (5.50–12.25) | 16.00 (11.00–29.00)△# | 7.00 (4.00–8.00) | < 0.001*** |
| CSO-EPVS numbers | 18.00 (10.50–24.25)△ | 18.00 (10.00–26.00)△ | 8.00 (4.25–13.00) | < 0.001*** |
| EPVS I as the main type, n (%) | 4 (15.40) | 10 (52.60) # | 10 (31.30) | 0.029* |
| Fazekas scores | 0.00 (0.00–0.00)△ | 1.00 (1.00–3.00)△# | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| CMBs numbers | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) | 1.00 (0.00–5.00)# | - | < 0.001*** |
| GCA scores | 1.00 (1.00–2.00)△ | 3.00 (2.00–3.00)△# | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| KS scores | 2.50 (1.75–3.00)△ | 3.00 (2.00–3.00)△ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| MTA scores | 1.00 (0.00–2.00)△ | 2.00 (1.00–3.00)△# | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| Lacunes numbers | 0.00 (0.00–3.00)△ | 1.00 (0.00–4.00)△ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| UPDRS-III scores “OFF” | 35.00 (20.00–45.00) | 50.00 (33.00–55.00)# | - | 0.005** |
| H-Y stages | 3.00 (1.75–4.00) | 3.00 (3.00–4.00)# | - | 0.003** |
| SN-TCS positive, n (%) | 15 (57.69) | 7 (36.84) | - | 0.167 |
| Duration of onset to enrolment, years | 1.00 (0.50–3.00) | 4.00 (1.00–6.00) | - | 0.087 |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Compared to the PD group, #adjusted P < 0.017. Compared to the control group, △adjusted P < 0.017
Fig. 1Comparison of the location and number of EPVS among the PD, VaP, and control groups. BG-EPVS in the VaP group were more numerous than in the PD and control groups (adjusted P < 0.017). The CSO-EPVS in the PD and VaP groups was higher than that in the control group (adjusted P < 0.017)
Correlation analysis of clinical characteristics with CI and NCI impairment in patients in PD and VaP groups; M (P25-P75)
| Variable | PD group ( | VaP group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI group ( | NCI group ( | CI group ( | NCI group ( | |||
| Age, years | 63.00 (58.00–70.75) | 62.00 (55.75–64.25) | 0.397 | 75.50 (69.50–80.75) | 73.00 (58.00–77.00) | 0.341 |
| Education levels: completed secondary school or more, n (%) | 10 (62.50) | 10 (100) | 0.027* | 9 (56.25) | 2 (75.00) | 0.737 |
| BG-EPVS numbers | 9.00 (7.00–12.00) | 7.00 (3.75–15.25) | 0.458 | 15.50 (10.25–30.50) | 16.00 (11.00–16.00) | 0.779 |
| CSO-EPVS numbers | 18.00 (9.50–23.50) | 18.50 (10.50–25.25) | 0.751 | 18.00 (7.75–26.00) | 18.00 (13.00–18.00) | 0.823 |
| EPVS I as the main type, n (%) | 3.00 (18.80) | 1.00 (10.00) | 0.547 | 9.00 (56.30) | 1.00 (33.30) | 0.466 |
| Fazekas scores | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.50) | 0.803 | 2.00 (1.00–3.75) | 1.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.152 |
| GCA scores | 1.00 (0.25–2.00) | 1.00 (1.00–2.00) | 0.825 | 3.00 (2.00–3.00) | 2.00 (2.00–3.00) | 0.478 |
| KS scores | 2.00 (1.00–3.00) | 3.00 (2.00–3.00) | 0.117 | 3.00 (2.25–3.00) | 3.00 (2.00–3.00) | 0.770 |
| MTA scores | 1.00 (0.00–2.00) | 1.00 (0.00–1.25) | 0.738 | 2.50 (1.00–3.75) | 2.00 (1.00–2.00) | 0.358 |
| Lacunes numbers | 0.00 (0.00–2.75) | 1.00 (0.00–3.50) | 0.828 | 2.00 (0.25–5.50) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.038* |
| CMBs numbers | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.055 | 1.50 (1.00–5.75) | 0.00 (0.00–2.00) | 0.189 |
| UPDRS-III scores “OFF” | 42.50 (30.25–45.00) | 22.00 (18.50–34.25) | 0.086 | 50.00 (33.50–55.00) | 50.00 (30.00–58.00) | 0.867 |
| H-Y stages | 3.00 (2.00–4.00) | 1.00 (2.00–3.00) | 0.174 | 4.00 (3.00–4.75) | 3.00 (3.00–4.00) | 0.412 |
*P < 0.05
Fig. 2Comparison of the location and number of EPVS among the PD-CI, VaP-CI, and control groups. BG-EPVS in the VaP-CI group were more numerous than in the PD-CI and control groups (adjusted P < 0.017). CSO-EPVS in the PD-CI and VaP-CI groups were higher than that in the control group (adjusted P < 0.017)
Correlation analysis of clinical characteristics between the PD-CI and VaP-CI groups and control group; M (P25-P75)
| Variable | PD-CI group ( | VaP-CI group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 63.00 (58.00–70.75) ^ | 75.50 (69.50–80.75) ^ | 48.50 (37.50–57.00) | < 0.001*** |
| BG-EPVS numbers | 9.00 (7.00–12.00) | 15.50 (10.25–30.50) ^△ | 7.00 (4.00–8.00) | < 0.001*** |
| CSO-EPVS numbers | 18.00 (9.50–23.50) ^ | 18.00 (7.75–26.00) ^ | 8.00 (4.25–13.00) | 0.001** |
| EPVS I as the main type, n (%) | 3 (18.80) | 9 (56.30) | 10 (31.30) | 0.072 |
| Fazekas scores | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) ^ | 2.00 (1.00–3.75) ^△ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| GCA scores | 1.00 (0.25–2.00) ^ | 3.00 (2.00–3.00) ^△ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| KS scores | 2.00 (1.00–3.00) ^ | 3.00 (2.25–3.00) ^△ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| MTA scores | 1.00 (0.00–2.00) ^ | 2.50 (1.00–3.75) ^△ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| Lacunes numbers | 0.00 (0.00–2.75) ^ | 2.00 (0.25–5.50) ^ | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | < 0.001*** |
| CMBs numbers | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) | 1.50 (1.00–5.75) # | - | 0.002** |
| UPDRS-III scores “OFF” | 42.50 (30.25–45.00) | 50.00 (33.50–55.00) | - | 0.076 |
| H-Y stages | 3.00 (2.00–4.00) | 4.00 (3.00–4.75) # | - | 0.031* |
| Duration of onset to enrolment, years | 1.00 (0.50–2.75) | 3.50 (1.25–6.00) | - | 0.155 |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Compared to the control group, ^adjusted P < 0.017. Compared to the PD-CI group, △adjusted P < 0.017, #P < 0.05
Logistic regression analysis of clinical characteristics of PD-CI and VaP-CI patients
| Variable | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| BG-EPVS numbers | 1.27 (0.92–1.76) | 0.141 |
| Fazekas scores | 0.76 (1.86–3.08) | 0.697 |
| Brain atrophy scores | 3.00 (0.64–14.11) | 0.163 |
| CMBs numbers | 12.02 (0.49–293.44) | 0.127 |
| H-Y stages | 3.65 (0.33–40.53) | 0.292 |
PD-CI group and VaP-CI group were used as classification dependent variables. Clinical characteristics that were significantly different between the groups in Table 3 were included in multivariate logistic regression analysis. GCA scores, KS scores, and MTA scores all represent brain atrophy, so the brain atrophy scores are equal to the sum of GCA scores, KS scores, and MTA scores. BG-EPVS numbers, Fazekas scores, brain atrophy scores, CMB numbers, and H-Y stages were used as independent variables for multivariate logistic regression analysis. None of these clinical characteristics reached statistical significance, P > 0.05
Fig. 3ROC curves of BG-EPVS, Fazekas scores, and GCA scores for VaP-CI occurrence. A BG-EPVS numbers, B Fazekas scores, C GCA scores. The PD-CI group was used as the reference group, and the VaP-CI group was used as the measurement group. The diagnostic cutoff value corresponds to the maximum point of the Youden index. The diagnostic cutoff value corresponds to the maximal specificity