Table 2:

Comparison of perfusion parameters between study groupsa

HC (n = 19)RRMS-NI (n = 19)RRMS-I (n = 20)
WMGMWMLNAWMCLNAGMWMLNAWMCLNAGM
CBF21.8b44.0f14.4d,e21.5d,e21.4c41.1c,d,f12.5d,e17.0b,d,e23.1c31.7c,d,f
(mL/100 g per min)(19.7–28.4)(37.9–49.5)(9.9–20.2)(16.0–29.5)(15.7–32.3)(29.8–55.7)(8.1–18.5)(13.2–25.2)(15.4–34.3)(24.6–44.5)
CBV1.5b2.8f1.1d,e1.6d,e1.4c2.5c,d1.0d,e1.3b,d.e1.7c2.1c,d,f
(mL/100 g)(1.2–1.9)(2.1–3.2)(0.8–1.6)(1.2–2.1)(1.1–2.0)(1.9–3.4)(0.7–1.4)(1.0–1.7)(1.2–2.4)(1.7–2.7)
MTT4.3b3.8f4.8e4.6e4.33.9d,f5.0e4.8b,e4.6c4.0c,d,f
(min)(3.9–5.0)(3.4–4.3)(4.1–5.9)(4.1–5.2)(3.5–4.9)(3.3–4.4)(4.2–6.0)(4.3–5.2)(3.9–5.4)(3.5–4.6)
  • Note:—HC indicates healthy controls.

  • a Normal-appearing GM and WM tissues are compared across patients with RRMS who were cognitively unimpaired and impaired and with healthy controls with corrected P < .017 (ie, .05/3) identified as significantly different. Lesion perfusion was also independently compared across disease groups and with the corresponding normal-appearing tissue within each patient group with P < .05 identified as significantly different. The values represent medians; the interquartile range for values are giving in parentheses.

  • b HC WM vs NAWM.

  • c CL vs NAGM.

  • d RRMS-NI vs RRMS-I.

  • e WML vs NAWM.

  • f HC GM vs NAGM.