Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundBlood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption has been noted in animal models of Parkinson's disease (PD) and forms the basis of the vascular hypothesis of neurodegeneration, yet clinical studies are lacking.ObjectiveTo determine alterations in BBB integrity in PD, with comparison to cerebrovascular disease.MethodsDynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance images were collected from 49 PD patients, 15 control subjects with cerebrovascular disease [control positive (CP)] and 31 healthy control subjects [control negative (CN)], with all groups matched for age. Quantitative maps of the contrast agent transfer coefficient across the BBB (K trans) and plasma volume (v p ) were produced using Patlak analysis. Differences in K trans and v p were assessed with voxel-based analysis as well as in regions associated with PD pathophysiology. In addition, the volume of white matter lesions (WMLs) was obtained from T2-weighted fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) images.ResultsHigher K trans, reflecting higher BBB leakage, was found in the PD group than in the CN group using voxel-based analysis; differences were most prominent in the posterior white matter regions. Region of interest analysis confirmed K trans to be significantly higher in PD than in CN, predominantly driven by differences in the substantia nigra, normal-appearing white matter, WML and the posterior cortex. WML volume was significantly higher in PD compared to CN. K trans values and WML volume were similar in PD and CP, suggesting a similar burden of cerebrovascular disease despite lower cardiovascular risk factors.ConclusionThese results show BBB disruption in PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.