Obstetrics
Cortical blindness in severe preeclampsia: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and single-photon-emission computed tomography findings

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00878-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: Cortical blindness is a complication of severe preeclampsia, but it is unclear whether it results from cerebral vasospasm and ischemic injury or vasogenic (hydrostatic) edema due to increased capillary permeability.

Case: Reversible cortical blindness in a 33-year-old gravida 2, para 1, with severe postpartum preeclampsia after evacuation of a partial molar pregnancy at 19 weeks’ gestation is presented. Initial neuroimaging studies showed hyperperfusion on head single-photon-emission computed tomography scan, which corresponded with lesions found on head computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Follow-up neuroimaging studies 2 weeks later, by which time the patient’s visual acuity had returned to normal, showed complete resolution of radiologic abnormalities.

Conclusion: Neuroimaging studies in a woman with severe postpartum preeclampsia complicated by reversible cortical blindness showed that blindness resulted from vasogenic (hydrostatic) cerebral edema and not cerebral vasospasm.

Section snippets

Case

A 33-year-old woman, gravida 2, para 1, had abdominal ultrasound at 18 weeks’ gestation that found a probable partial molar pregnancy with a single structurally anomalous female fetus. Antenatal course was complicated by intractable nausea and vomiting. Results of pertinent laboratory tests were β-hCG 1,263,520 mIU/mL and TSH 0.44 mU/L (normal range, 0.2–0.40 mU/L). An uncomplicated dilation and evacuation was done with an autopsy that confirmed the multiple fetal anomalies detected by

Comment

The incidence of cortical blindness manifestated by hypertensive encephalopathy in preeclampsia is 1–15%.5, 7 It is not known whether cortical blindness results from cerebral vasospasm with ischemic injury, arteriolar necrosis, and cytotoxic edema3, 4 or from increased capillary permeability with leakage of fluid and proteins into the surrounding tissues resulting in vasogenic (hydrostatic) edema.5, 6 In either case, the end result is focal cerebral edema. The cerebral edema on head CT or MRI

References (7)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (77)

  • Cerebral perfusion in posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome measured with arterial spin labeling MRI

    2022, NeuroImage: Clinical
    Citation Excerpt :

    With this theory, vasoconstrictive and immunogenic agents released by damaged vascular endothelial cells are thought to mediate vasospasm and/or increased BBB permeability, leading to cerebral hypoperfusion and edema formation (Bartynski, 2008; Anderson et al., 2020; Marra et al., 2014). Prior studies using contrast-enhanced MR and CT perfusion imaging and Tc99m-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime (Tc99m-HMPAO) SPECT have yielded contradictory results (Bartynski, 2008; Schwartz et al., 1995; Apollon et al., 2000; Hedna et al., 2012; Wartenberg and Parra, 2006; Vanacker et al., 2015; Sarbu et al., 2014). While a number of early case reports and series have reported hyperperfusion in the setting of PRES (Schwartz et al., 1995; Apollon et al., 2000; Hedna et al., 2012; Wartenberg and Parra, 2006), more recent studies have shown reduced CBF in affected regions (Vanacker et al., 2015; Sarbu et al., 2014).

  • Cerebrovascular Pathophysiology in Preeclampsia and Eclampsia

    2021, Chesley’s Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy
  • Immune system activation in the pathogenesis of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome

    2017, Brain Research Bulletin
    Citation Excerpt :

    Direct evidence of cerebral hyperperfusion is not usually found in PRES patients. Hyperperfusion was only reported in some of the early PRES cases (Schwartz et al., 1992; Apollon et al., 2000). Most of the PRES patients reported previously had high blood pressure, especially patients with eclampsia and hypertension.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Supported by the Reproductive Scientist Development Program through National Institutes of Health (grant 5K12-HD00849) and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (to ERN).

View full text