The Influence of the Ventricular-Lumbar Gradient on Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis in Serial Samples.
cerebrospinal fluid
idiopathic intrathecal hypertension
immunoglobulins
normal pressure hydrocephalus
ventriculo-lumbar gradient
virus-specific antibody index
Journal
Brain sciences
ISSN: 2076-3425
Titre abrégé: Brain Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101598646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2022
20 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
11
02
2022
revised:
18
03
2022
accepted:
19
03
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
26
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from patients with non-inflammatory neurological diseases are used for control groups in biomarker studies. Since large amounts of CSF are withdrawn, patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) or normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) are especially suitable. The serially taken CSF portions are usually collected in different tubes. We aimed to investigate whether the later random choice of one of these tubes for CSF investigations might harbor the risk of different CSF protein findings due to the so-called ventriculo-lumbar CSF gradient. Patients with IIH (9) and NPH (7) were included. CSF was serially taken and collected in six tubes of 5 mL each. Concentrations and CSF-serum quotients of immunoglobulins, albumin and the virus-specific antibody index (AI) were determined in the first, fourth and sixth CSF fraction. CSF immunoglobulin and albumin concentrations and CSF-serum protein quotients were significantly lower in the fourth and sixth CSF fraction compared with the first CSF fraction. Virus-specific AI did not significantly differ in the different CSF fractions. CSF protein analytics should be performed in the first CSF fraction in order to avoid different measurement results and achieve comparability within a control group and between different control and patient groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from patients with non-inflammatory neurological diseases are used for control groups in biomarker studies. Since large amounts of CSF are withdrawn, patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) or normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) are especially suitable. The serially taken CSF portions are usually collected in different tubes. We aimed to investigate whether the later random choice of one of these tubes for CSF investigations might harbor the risk of different CSF protein findings due to the so-called ventriculo-lumbar CSF gradient.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with IIH (9) and NPH (7) were included. CSF was serially taken and collected in six tubes of 5 mL each. Concentrations and CSF-serum quotients of immunoglobulins, albumin and the virus-specific antibody index (AI) were determined in the first, fourth and sixth CSF fraction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
CSF immunoglobulin and albumin concentrations and CSF-serum protein quotients were significantly lower in the fourth and sixth CSF fraction compared with the first CSF fraction. Virus-specific AI did not significantly differ in the different CSF fractions.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CSF protein analytics should be performed in the first CSF fraction in order to avoid different measurement results and achieve comparability within a control group and between different control and patient groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35326365
pii: brainsci12030410
doi: 10.3390/brainsci12030410
pmc: PMC8946585
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Clin Chem. 1991 Jul;37(7):1153-60
pubmed: 1855284
Handb Clin Neurol. 2017;146:21-32
pubmed: 29110772
Clin Investig. 1992 Jan;70(1):28-37
pubmed: 1318123
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2003;21(3-4):79-96
pubmed: 14530572
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2012 Jul;119(7):739-46
pubmed: 22426833
Cerebrospinal Fluid Res. 2010 Jun 21;7:9
pubmed: 20565964
Anesthesiology. 1998 Jul;89(1):24-9
pubmed: 9667290
Lancet Neurol. 2003 Aug;2(8):506-11
pubmed: 12878439
Clin Chim Acta. 2001 Aug 20;310(2):173-86
pubmed: 11498083
J Neuroimmunol. 1988 Dec;20(2-3):233-5
pubmed: 3198747
Mult Scler. 1998 Jun;4(3):99-107
pubmed: 9762655
Acta Neurol Scand. 2003 Oct;108(4):252-6
pubmed: 12956858
N Engl J Med. 1965 Jul 15;273:117-26
pubmed: 14303656
Clin Chim Acta. 2018 Nov;486:1-7
pubmed: 30003878
Neurology. 2002 Nov 26;59(10):1492-5
pubmed: 12455560
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016 Feb;54(2):285-92
pubmed: 26079822
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;72(4):503-6
pubmed: 11909911
J Neurol Sci. 2001 Mar 1;184(2):101-22
pubmed: 11239944
Clin Chem. 1995 Feb;41(2):256-63
pubmed: 7874779
Fluids Barriers CNS. 2016 Aug 31;13(1):15
pubmed: 27581842
Neurology. 1982 Aug;32(8):893-4
pubmed: 7201587
Eur Neurol. 1993;33(2):126-8
pubmed: 8467818
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2011 Dec;128(6):309-16
pubmed: 22100360
Lancet Neurol. 2006 May;5(5):433-42
pubmed: 16632314
Neurology. 1998 Dec;51(6):1710-4
pubmed: 9855528
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994 Aug;57(8):897-902
pubmed: 8057110
Mult Scler. 2013 Nov;19(13):1802-9
pubmed: 23695446