Long-term follow-up of dynamic brain changes in patients recovered from COVID-19 without neurological manifestations

Tian Tian, Jinfeng Wu, Tao Chen, Jia Li, Su Yan, Yiran Zhou, Xiaolong Peng, Yuanhao Li, Ning Zheng, Aoling Cai, Qin Ning, Hongbing Xiang, Fuqiang Xu, Yuanyuan Qin, Wenzhen Zhu, Jie Wang, Tian Tian, Jinfeng Wu, Tao Chen, Jia Li, Su Yan, Yiran Zhou, Xiaolong Peng, Yuanhao Li, Ning Zheng, Aoling Cai, Qin Ning, Hongbing Xiang, Fuqiang Xu, Yuanyuan Qin, Wenzhen Zhu, Jie Wang

Abstract

BACKGROUNDAfter the initial surge in COVID-19 cases, large numbers of patients were discharged from a hospital without assessment of recovery. Now, an increasing number of patients report postacute neurological sequelae, known as "long COVID" - even those without specific neurological manifestations in the acute phase.METHODSDynamic brain changes are crucial for a better understanding and early prevention of "long COVID." Here, we explored the cross-sectional and longitudinal consequences of COVID-19 on the brain in 34 discharged patients without neurological manifestations. Gray matter morphology, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and volumes of white matter tracts were investigated using advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques to explore dynamic brain changes from 3 to 10 months after discharge.RESULTSOverall, the differences of cortical thickness were dynamic and finally returned to the baseline. For cortical CBF, hypoperfusion in severe cases observed at 3 months tended to recover at 10 months. Subcortical nuclei and white matter differences between groups and within subjects showed various trends, including recoverable and long-term unrecovered differences. After a 10-month recovery period, a reduced volume of nuclei in severe cases was still more extensive and profound than that in mild cases.CONCLUSIONOur study provides objective neuroimaging evidence for the coexistence of recoverable and long-term unrecovered changes in 10-month effects of COVID-19 on the brain. The remaining potential abnormalities still deserve public attention, which is critically important for a better understanding of "long COVID" and early clinical guidance toward complete recovery.FUNDINGNational Natural Science Foundation of China.

Keywords: COVID-19; Neuroimaging; Neuroscience.

Figures

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the experimental…
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the experimental design.
Five data sets were acquired in follow-up studies. Green color, relative data have been published in our former work (14); blue color, research content focused in this study. BRAVO, brain volume; DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; MG1, mild group at 3 months after discharge; MG2, mild group at 10 months after discharge; NC, normal control; pcASL, pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling; SG1, severe group at 3 months after discharge; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge.
Figure 2. Cortical thickness analyses.
Figure 2. Cortical thickness analyses.
(AC) There were only significant differences in paired comparisons. L, left; MG1, mild group at 3 months after discharge; MG2, mild group at 10 months after discharge; R, right; SG1, severe group at 3 months after discharge; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge.
Figure 3. Cortical CBF analyses.
Figure 3. Cortical CBF analyses.
Compared with NC, SG2 showed extensive lower CBF values in the brain. CBF, cerebral blood flow; L, left; NC, normal control; R, right; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge.
Figure 4. Subcortical nuclei with significant volumetric…
Figure 4. Subcortical nuclei with significant volumetric differences between groups.
(AC) Significant (P < 0.05) volumetric differences in subcortical nuclei were found in MG paired, SG2-MG2, and SG2-NC comparisons. L, left; MG1, mild group at 3 months after discharge; MG2, mild group at 10 months after discharge; NC, normal control; R, right; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge.
Figure 5. Subcortical nuclei with significant CBF…
Figure 5. Subcortical nuclei with significant CBF differences between groups.
(A and B) Both MG2 and SG2 showed significantly reduced CBF than NC in many subcortical nuclei. CBF, cerebral blood flow; L, left; MG2, mild group at 10 months after discharge; NC, normal control; R, right; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge.
Figure 6. White matter tracts with significant…
Figure 6. White matter tracts with significant volumetric differences in paired comparisons.
(A and B) There were significant volumetric differences in tracts between the different recovered periods of MG and SG. AR, acoustic radiation; ATR, anterior thalamic radiation; CST, corticospinal tract; FX, fornix; L, left; MG1, mild group at 3 months after discharge; MG2, mild group at 10 months after discharge; R, right; SG1, severe group at 3 months after discharge; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge; SLF1, superior longitudinal fasciculus I; STR, superior thalamic radiation; VOF, vertical occipital fasciculus.
Figure 7. White matter tracts with significant…
Figure 7. White matter tracts with significant volumetric differences in patients compared with NC.
(A and B) Both MG2 and SG2 showed significantly reduced volumes compared with NC in many white matter tracts. AR, acoustic radiation; CST, corticospinal tract; FAT, frontal aslant tract; FMA, forceps major; FMI, forceps minor; ILF, inferior longitudinal fasciculus; L, left; MDLF, middle longitudinal fasciculus; MG2, mild group at 10 months after discharge; NC, normal control; R, right; SG2, severe group at 10 months after discharge; VOF, vertical occipital fasciculus.

References

    1. Kandemirli SG, et al. Brain MRI findings in patients in the intensive care unit with COVID-19 infection. Radiology. 2020;297(1):E232–E235. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201697.
    1. Li J, et al. Culture versus policy: more global collaboration to effectively combat COVID-19. Innovation (N Y) 2020;1(2):100023.
    1. Pezzini A, Padovani A. Lifting the mask on neurological manifestations of COVID-19. Nat Rev Neurol. 2020;16(11):636–644. doi: 10.1038/s41582-020-0398-3.
    1. Iadecola C, et al. Effects of COVID-19 on the nervous system. Cell. 2020;183(1):16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.028.
    1. Daugherty SE, et al. Risk of clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2021;373:n1098.
    1. Fotuhi M, et al. Neurobiology of COVID-19. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;76(1):3–19. doi: 10.3233/JAD-200581.
    1. Mao L, et al. Neurologic manifestations of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(6):683–690. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1127.
    1. Huang C, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet. 2021;397(10270):220–232. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8.
    1. Dani M, et al. Autonomic dysfunction in ‘long COVID’: rationale, physiology and management strategies. Clin Med (Lond) 2021;21(1):e63–e67.
    1. Orrù G, et al. Long-COVID syndrome? A study on the persistence of neurological, psychological and physiological symptoms. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9(5):575.
    1. Petersen MS, et al. Long COVID in the Faroe Islands — a longitudinal study among non-hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(11):e4058–e4063. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1792.
    1. Vink M, Vink-Niese A. Could cognitive behavioural therapy be an effective treatment for long COVID and post COVID-19 fatigue syndrome? Lessons from the qure study for Q-fever fatigue syndrome. Healthcare (Basel) 2020;8(4):552.
    1. Dennis A, et al. Multiorgan impairment in low-risk individuals with post-COVID-19 syndrome: a prospective, community-based study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e048391.
    1. Qin Y, et al. Long-term microstructure and cerebral blood flow changes in patients recovered from COVID-19 without neurological manifestations. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(8):e147329. doi: 10.1172/JCI147329.
    1. Uddin LQ, et al. Structure and function of the human insula. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;34(4):300–306. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000377.
    1. Kulick-Soper CV, et al. Pearls & Oy-sters: bilateral globus pallidus lesions in a patient with COVID-19. Neurology. 2020;95(10):454–457. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010157.
    1. Pasternak JF, Gorey MT. The syndrome of acute near-total intrauterine asphyxia in the term infant. Pediatr Neurol. 1998;18(5):391–398. doi: 10.1016/S0887-8994(98)00002-2.
    1. Wei N, et al. A processing pipeline for quantifying lenticulostriate artery vascular volume in subcortical nuclei. Front Neurol. 2021;12:700476. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.700476.
    1. Liem MK, et al. 7 T MRI reveals diffuse iron deposition in putamen and caudate nucleus in CADASIL. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012;83(12):1180–1185. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302545.
    1. Lu Y, et al. The volumetric and shape changes of the putamen and thalamus in first episode, untreated major depressive disorder. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;11:658–666. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.04.008.
    1. Fino E, et al. Asymmetric spike-timing dependent plasticity of striatal nitric oxide-synthase interneurons. Neuroscience. 2009;160(4):744–754. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.03.015.
    1. Kumari P, et al. Hypobaric hypoxia induced fear and extinction memory impairment and effect of Ginkgo biloba in its amelioration: Behavioral, neurochemical and molecular correlates. Behav Brain Res. 2020;387:112595. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112595.
    1. Pessoa L. A network model of the emotional brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21(5):357–371. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.002.
    1. Newcombe VFJ, et al. Neuroanatomical substrates of generalized brain dysfunction in COVID-19. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(1):116–118. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06241-w.
    1. Baz-Martinez M, et al. Cell senescence is an antiviral defense mechanism. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37007. doi: 10.1038/srep37007.
    1. von Bernhardi R, et al. What is neural plasticity? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1015:1–15.
    1. Sampaio-Baptista C, Johansen-Berg H. White matter plasticity in the adult brain. Neuron. 2017;96(6):1239–1251. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.11.026.
    1. Matschke J, et al. Neuropathology of patients with COVID-19 in Germany: a post-mortem case series. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(11):919–929. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30308-2.
    1. Huang C, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
    1. Kantonen J, et al. Neuropathologic features of four autopsied COVID-19 patients. Brain Pathol. 2020;30(6):1012–1016. doi: 10.1111/bpa.12889.
    1. Hascup ER, Hascup KN. Does SARS-CoV-2 infection cause chronic neurological complications? Geroscience. 2020;42(4):1083–1087. doi: 10.1007/s11357-020-00207-y.
    1. Helms J, et al. High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(6):1089–1098. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06062-x.
    1. Raahimi MM, et al. Late onset of Guillain-Barre syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection: part of ‘long COVID-19 syndrome’? BMJ Case Rep. 2021;14(1):e240178. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2020-240178.
    1. Del Brutto OH, et al. Cognitive decline among individuals with history of mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: a longitudinal prospective study nested to a population cohort. Eur J Neurol. 2021;28(10):3245–3253. doi: 10.1111/ene.14775.
    1. Ejaz H, et al. COVID-19 and comorbidities: deleterious impact on infected patients. J Infect Public Health. 2020;13(12):1833–1839. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.07.014.
    1. Zilliox LA, et al. Diabetes and cognitive impairment. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16(9):87. doi: 10.1007/s11892-016-0775-x.
    1. Muniangi-Muhitu H, et al. Covid-19 and diabetes: a complex bidirectional relationship. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020;11:582936. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.582936.
    1. van der Veen PH, et al. Brain volumes and risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. The SMART-MR study. Neurobiol Aging. 2014;35(7):1624–1631. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.02.003.
    1. Gasmi A, et al. Interrelations between COVID-19 and other disorders. Clin Immunol. 2021;224:108651. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108651.
    1. de Roos A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of cardiovascular function and the brain: is dementia a cardiovascular-driven disease? Circulation. 2017;135(22):2178–2195. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021978.
    1. Kurz DJ, Eberli FR. Cardiovascular aspects of COVID-19. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20417.
    1. Tadic M, et al. COVID-19 and arterial hypertension: hypothesis or evidence? J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2020;22(7):1120–1126. doi: 10.1111/jch.13925.
    1. Manjon JV, Coupe P. volBrain: An online MRI brain volumetry system. Front Neuroinform. 2016;10:30.
    1. Tustison NJ, et al. Large-scale evaluation of ANTs and FreeSurfer cortical thickness measurements. Neuroimage. 2014;99:166–179. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.044.
    1. Alsop DC, Detre JA. Reduced transit-time sensitivity in noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging of human cerebral blood flow. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1996;16(6):1236–1249. doi: 10.1097/00004647-199611000-00019.
    1. Wu B, et al. Intra- and interscanner reliability and reproducibility of 3D whole-brain pseudo-continuous arterial spin-labeling MR perfusion at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(2):402–409. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24175.
    1. van Gelderen P, et al. Pittfalls of MRI measurement of white matter perfusion based on arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med. 2008;59(4):788–795. doi: 10.1002/mrm.21515.
    1. Xu G, et al. Reliability and precision of pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI on 3.0 T and comparison with 15O-water PET in elderly subjects at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. NMR Biomed. 2010;23(3):286–293. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1462.
    1. Warrington S, et al. XTRACT — standardised protocols for automated tractography in the human and macaque brain. Neuroimage. 2020;217:116923. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116923.
    1. Winkler AM, et al. Permutation inference for the general linear model. Neuroimage. 2014;92:381–397. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する