temporal lobe epilepsy F06.7 G40
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: healthy subjects
begin:
EEG,
neuropsychological diagnostics
2 weeks after begin:
structural & functional MRI,
EEG
18 months after begin:
neuropsychological diagnostics
Group 2: temporal lobe epilepsy - chronic course and resistance to medication
begin:
EEG,
neuropsychological diagnostics
Group 3: mild cognitive impairment
amnestic subtype
begin:
EEG,
neuropsychological diagnostics
Group 4: subjective memory complaints
performance 1 standard deviation below average
begin:
EEG,
neuropsychological diagnostics
Sponsors
Universitätsklinik für Neurologie
der Paracelsus med. Privatuniversität Salzburg
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 100 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: MCI: We include 20 level 2 patients (subjective cognitive complaints of memory-related nature) and 20 level 3 patients (mild cognitive impairment; amnestic subtype) according to the “global deterioration scale for aging and dementia” (Reisberg et al., 1982). Level 2 patients are included if they have subjective cognitive complaints of memory-related nature, not reaching the diagnostic criteria on neuropsychological scales for MCI but scoring at least 1 standard-deviation below normative data (Gauthier et al., 2006). Level 3 patients are diagnosed with the CERAD-tests according to Petersen et al. (1999). Patients are included if they report duration of the problems for at least 0.5 and maximal 5 years. TLE : We include 20 patients with chronic, medication resistant, i.e. not controllable seizures, unilateral TLE. Patients are included regardless presence or severeness of memory deficits. Healthy controls: 20 subjects will participate in the pre-evaluation of the EEG-paradigms. 80 subjects will serve as control-group for the MCI/TLE groups. The control group will be recruited among the non-genetically connate relatives or friends of the patients to ensure similar demographic factors.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: MCI: Patients are excluded if aged below 50 or if vascular, metabolic, traumatic, or psychiatric pathologies as well as pharmacological treatment may better explains the impairment. Thus, only patients with probable degenerative aetiology will be considered. TLE: Patients with progressive lesions or immune-mediated TLE will be excluded. Healthy controls: Subjects with psychiatric or neurologic diseases will be excluded.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| prognosis of memory decline by markers in EEG and MRI EEG: begin: Synchronicity, complexity and frequency distribution during encoding of information (word-pair-learing and watching a movie) and during recall of information(word-pair-recall: free recall and recognition) EEG: 2 weeks after begin: synchronicity, complexity and frequency distribution during recall of information(word-pair-recall: free recall and recognition; questions about the movie) MRI: 2 weeks after begin: volumetry, shape, cortical thickness of hippocampus, rhinal and entorhinal cortex and global intensity and deformation. The validity of the prognosis according to these markers will be evaluated according to the neuropsychologically measured decline of memory (difference between begin and 18 months later). | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Basic research: analogies in the pattern of physiological changes related with memory decline in MCI and TLE group comparisons according to the markers: EEG: begin: synchronicity, complexity and frequency distribution during encoding of information (word-pair-learing and watching a movie) and during recall of information(word-pair-recall: free recall and recognition) EEG: 2 weeks after begin: synchronicity, complexity and frequency distribution during recall of information(word-pair-recall: free recall and recognition; questions about the movie) MRT: 2 weeks after begin: volumetry, shape, cortical thickness of hippocampus, rhinal and entorhinal cortex and global intensity and deformation. tecnical aspects of the analysis: Which algorithms perform best for segmenting the relevant brain regions? Which protocol for segmentation yields the most accurate prognosis? | — |
Countries
Austria
Contacts
Public ContactYvonne Höller
Universitätsklinik für Neurologie der Paracelsus med. Privatuniversität Salzburg
Outcome results
None listed