SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Relationship between the washout rate of I-123 MIBG scans and autonomic function in Parkinson's disease.

PLoS One · 2020-03-05

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229860PMID: 32134983

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Evaluation Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeWe have evaluated the clinical significance of the washout rate (WR) on I-123 MIBG scans through the analysis of the relationship between the I-123 MIBG scans and autonomic status in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).Materials and methodsSixty patients with clinical PD who had decreased HMR were enrolled. An autonomic symptom was evaluated using a head-up tilt test and the Composite Autonomic Severity Score (CASS). An I-123 MIBG scan and F-18 FP-CIT positron emission tomography (PET) were performed. All of the patients were classified into three groups according to the WR. The differences in patient characteristics and the imaging parameters among the three groups were evaluated, and a correlation analysis was also performed.ResultsThe frequency of orthostatic hypotension was significantly different among the three groups. The difference in systolic pressure (dSysPr) and the difference in diastolic pressure (dDiaPr) of group 3 was significantly larger than those of groups 1 and 2. From the correlation analysis, it can be seen that age, Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stage, dSysPr, and dDiaPr had a weak positive correlation with the WR. The total CASS score was significantly higher in group 3 compared with groups 1 and 2. The WR had a moderate positive correlation with the cardiosympathetic score and the total CASS score.ConclusionThe WR is related to autonomic dysfunction. An I-123 MIBG cardiac scan is considered to be a good method to evaluate not only the differential diagnosis of Parkinson's disease but also the degree of autonomic dysfunction.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.