Brain and behavior · 2026
Clinical Spectrum of Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome With and Without Angiographic Vasoconstriction: A Retrospective Study of 84 Hospitalized Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Takeuchi Katsuya, Kikui Shoji, Matsumoto Yoshiki, Murakata Kenji, Sugiyama Hanako, Ota Kuniko, Danno Daisuke, Kashiwaya Yoshihiro, Takeshima Takao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) without demonstrable vasoconstriction differ clinically from those with angiographically confirmed vasoconstriction.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients with RCVS hospitalized at a tertiary headache center in Japan between February 2011 and March 2026. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of angiographically demonstrable vasoconstriction on magnetic resonance angiography. Demographic characteristics, clinical features, surrogate markers of disease severity, treatment patterns, triggering factors, neuroimaging abnormalities, and outcomes were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included: 61 with demonstrable vasoconstriction and 23 without. The two groups did not differ significantly in age (median, 51 vs. 53 years; p = 0.213), female predominance (80% vs. 78%; p = 1.000), or migraine history (59% vs. 57%; p = 1.000). Clinical features were similar, including the number of thunderclap headache episodes (median, 4 vs. 4; p = 0.577) and the interval from the first to the last thunderclap headache (median, 6 vs. 6 days; p = 0.460). Time to hospitalization, length of hospital stay, calcium channel blocker use (98% vs. 100%; p = 1.000), neuroimaging abnormalities (8% vs. 9%; p = 1.000), and persistent neurological sequelae (2% vs. 0%; p = 1.000) were also comparable.
CONCLUSION: Patients without demonstrable vasoconstriction exhibited clinical characteristics, severity indicators, management, and outcomes similar to those with confirmed vasoconstriction. These findings suggest that the two groups may share a common clinical spectrum; however, confirmation in larger prospective studies is warranted.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients with RCVS hospitalized at a tertiary headache center in Japan between February 2011 and March 2026. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of angiographically demonstrable vasoconstriction on magnetic resonance angiography. Demographic characteristics, clinical features, surrogate markers of disease severity, treatment patterns, triggering factors, neuroimaging abnormalities, and outcomes were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included: 61 with demonstrable vasoconstriction and 23 without. The two groups did not differ significantly in age (median, 51 vs. 53 years; p = 0.213), female predominance (80% vs. 78%; p = 1.000), or migraine history (59% vs. 57%; p = 1.000). Clinical features were similar, including the number of thunderclap headache episodes (median, 4 vs. 4; p = 0.577) and the interval from the first to the last thunderclap headache (median, 6 vs. 6 days; p = 0.460). Time to hospitalization, length of hospital stay, calcium channel blocker use (98% vs. 100%; p = 1.000), neuroimaging abnormalities (8% vs. 9%; p = 1.000), and persistent neurological sequelae (2% vs. 0%; p = 1.000) were also comparable.
CONCLUSION: Patients without demonstrable vasoconstriction exhibited clinical characteristics, severity indicators, management, and outcomes similar to those with confirmed vasoconstriction. These findings suggest that the two groups may share a common clinical spectrum; however, confirmation in larger prospective studies is warranted.