ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The pulvinar sign refers to exclusive T1WI hyperintensity of the lateral pulvinar. Long considered a common sign of Fabry disease, the pulvinar sign has been reported in many pathologic conditions. The exact incidence of the pulvinar sign has never been tested in representative cohorts of patients with Fabry disease. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of the pulvinar sign in Fabry disease by analyzing T1WI in a large Fabry disease cohort, determining whether relaxometry changes could be detected in this region independent of the pulvinar sign positivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed brain MR imaging of 133 patients with Fabry disease recruited through specialized care clinics. A subgroup of 26 patients underwent a scan including 2 FLASH sequences for relaxometry that were compared with MRI scans of 34 healthy controls. RESULTS: The pulvinar sign was detected in 4 of 133 patients with Fabry disease (3.0%). These 4 subjects were all adult men (4 of 53, 7.5% of the entire male population) with renal failure and under enzyme replacement therapy. When we tested for discrepancies between Fabry disease and healthy controls in quantitative susceptibility mapping and relaxometry maps, no significant difference emerged for any of the tested variables. CONCLUSIONS: The pulvinar sign has a significantly lower incidence in Fabry disease than previously described. This finding, coupled with a lack of significant differences in quantitative MR imaging, allows hypothesizing that selective involvement of the pulvinar is a rare neuroradiologic sign of Fabry disease.
Subject(s)
Fabry Disease/pathology , Pulvinar/pathology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Fabry Disease/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Pulvinar/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultSubject(s)
Adolescent Behavior , Awareness , Global Health , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Promotion , Kidney Diseases , Students/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Blood Pressure Determination , Comprehension , Female , Health Literacy , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology , Hypertension/psychology , Hypertension/therapy , Italy/epidemiology , Kidney Diseases/diagnosis , Kidney Diseases/epidemiology , Kidney Diseases/psychology , Kidney Diseases/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Proteinuria/diagnosis , Proteinuria/epidemiology , Proteinuria/psychology , Proteinuria/therapy , Reagent Strips , Surveys and Questionnaires , Terminology as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Urinalysis/instrumentation , Young AdultSubject(s)
Kidney Diseases/ethnology , Kidney Diseases/epidemiology , Schools , Students , Adolescent , Blood Pressure/physiology , Body Mass Index , Chronic Disease , Female , Health Surveys , Hematuria/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , Kidney Diseases/physiopathology , Male , Proteinuria/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Coronary artery calcification is more prevalent in dialysis patients than in patients without kidney disease and this is associated with high serum phosphorus. In this study, we evaluate the effect of calcium carbonate or sevelamer treatments on the progression of calcification in 90 predialysis patients. Inclusion criteria were stable serum calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and a similar baseline total calcium score (TCS). These patients were not treated by phosphate binder, vitamin D, or statin. They were given low-phosphorus diets without or with daily calcium carbonate or sevelamer throughout the study that averaged 2 years. Baseline demographic or clinical characteristics along with biochemical parameters were not different among the three groups. The TCS significantly increased in patients on the low-phosphorus diet alone, to a lesser extent in calcium carbonate-treated patients, and not at all in sevelamer-treated patients. The progression of coronary calcification paralleled that of the calcium score. Our study shows that sevelamer treatment should not be restricted to dialysis patients; however, a larger study should be undertaken to confirm these results.
