Lemple-Zie complexity in patients with general paresis of insane and asymptomatic neurosyphilis

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2018.03.018

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To analyze the characteristics of Lemple-Zie complexity (LZC) in patients with general paresis of insane (GPI) and asymptomatic neurosyphilis (AN) using the nonlinear dynamic method.

Methods

Electroencephalogram (EEG) of 42 GPI patients and 43 AN patients with eyes closed in rest state in Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University from July 2015 to October 2017 were recorded. The EEG date of each lead was selected for LZC analysis by Matlab 7.0 software, and the changes of LZC values between the two groups were compared.

Results

The LZC values in all leads, bilateral hemispheres and the whole brain in the GPI group were lower than those in AN group, in which the LZC values of bilateral frontal areas (F3, F4), bilateral temporal areas (T5, T6) and the right central area (C4) decreased, with significant differences (F3: 0.417 ± 0.116 vs. 0.468 ± 0.128, t = 2.792, P = 0.043; F4: 0.413 ± 0.115 vs. 0.463 ± 0.130, t = 2.753, P = 0.045; T5: 0.398 ± 0.117 vs. 0.457 ± 0.128, t = 2.711, P = 0.047; T6: 0.395 ± 0.115 vs. 0.456 ± 0.128, t = 2.766, P = 0.044; C4: 0.405 ± 0.120 vs. 0.462 ± 0.125, t = 3.017, P = 0.031).

Conclusions

LZC value could be taken as a more sensitive index of changes of the cognitive function. With the decline of the cognitive function, the LZC values of frontal and temporal areas of the patients with GPI may decrease in the same direction, which may provide a valuable forecasting basis for early diagnosis and prognosis assessment of GPI.

Key words: Neurosyphilis, General paresis of insane, Asymptomatic neurosyphilis, Electroencephalogram, Lemple-Zie complexity

Meijuan Jiang, Wurong Li, Wenqing Wu, Yuming Huang, Dongmei Xu, Sumei Wang, Kaiyu Qin, Xiayang Ma. Lemple-Zie complexity in patients with general paresis of insane and asymptomatic neurosyphilis[J]. Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Infectious Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(03): 292-295.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhsyhlcgrbzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2018.03.018

https://zhsyhlcgrbzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V12/I03/292

Figures/Tables 2

References 24

[1]	Conde-Sendín MA, Hernández-Fleta JL, Cárdenes-Santana MA, et al. Neurosyphilis: forms of presentation and clinical management[J]. Rev Neurol,2002,35(4):380-386.
[2]	樊尚荣, 梁丽芬. 2015年美国疾病控制中心性传播疾病诊断和治疗指南(续)-梅毒的诊断和治疗指南[J]. 中国全科医学,2015,18(27):3260-3264.
[3]	Berger JR, Dean D. Neurosyphilis[J]. Handb Clin Neurol,2014,121:1461-1472.
[4]	Kato H, Ando T. Neurosyphilis and dementia[J]. Brain Nerve,2016,68(4):309-316.
[5]	Willeford WG, Bachmann LH. Syphilis ascendant: a brief history and modern trends[J]. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines,2016,2(20):1-4.
[6]	李颖洁, 邱意弘, 朱贻盛. 脑电信号分析方法及其应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社,2009:3-5.
[7]	闫拓, 薛青, 魏玲, 等. 老年人轻度认知障碍脑电的Lempel-Ziv复杂度分析[J]. 生物医学工程学杂志,2013,30(5):972-975.
[8]	Yang AC, Wang SJ, Lai KL, et al. Cognitive and neuropsychiatric correlates of EEG dynamic complexity in patients with Alzheimer’s disease[J]. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry,2013,47(9):52-61.
[9]	苏宗义, 龚爱红, 隋青, 等. 脑脊液TP-ELISA, TRUST和VDRL检测对神经梅毒的诊断价值探讨[J]. 中国微生态学杂志,2014,12(13):1411-1413.
[10]	陈春晓, 蒋荣猛. 神经梅毒临床及实验室检查相关因素的分析[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版),2014,8(5):654-657.
[11]	Marra CM. Update on neurosyphilis[J]. Curr Infect Dis Rep,2009,11(2):127-134.
[12]	Marks M, Jarvis JN, Howlett W, et al. Neurosyphilis in Africa: A systematic review[J]. PLoS Negl Trop Dis,2017, 11(8):1-14.
[13]	Drago F, Merlo G, Ciccarese G. Changes in neurosyphilis presentation: a survey on 286 patients[J]. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol,2016,30(11):1886-1900.
[14]	Dores AR, Barbosa F, Carvalho IP, et al. Study of behavioural and neural bases of visuo-spatial working memory with an fMRI paradigm based on an n-back task[J]. J Neuropsychol,2017,11(1):122-134.
[15]	施海姗, 钟笑梅, 侯乐, 等. 麻痹性痴呆与阿尔茨海默病患者海马区氢质子磁共振波谱特点[J]. 中华神经科杂志,2015,48(1):36-39.
[16]	叶林峰, 吴小杨, 林齐防, 等. 麻痹性痴呆患者海马磁共振波谱研究[J]. 临床神经病学杂志,2015,28(6):456-459.
[17]	Wang J, Guo Q, Zhou P, et al. Cognitive impairment in mild general paresis of the insane: AD-like pattern[J]. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord,2011,31(4):284-290.
[18]	Zong XM, Hou L, Luo XN, et al. Alterations of CSF cystatin C levels and their correlations with CSF Alphabeta40 and Alphabeta 42 levels in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia with lewy bodies and the atrophic form of general paresis[J]. PLoS One,2013,8(1):1-7.
[19]	徐梅松, 陶华英. 基于复杂度分析阿尔茨海默病,轻度认知功能障碍患者的脑电特点[J]. 中华神经科杂志,2013,46(10):687-691.
[20]	Nagappa M, Sinha S, Taly ABN, et al. Neurosyphilis: MRI features and their phenotypic correlation in a cohort of 35 patients from a tertiary care university hospital[J]. Neuroradiology,2013,55(4):379- 388.
[21]	高俊华, 李务荣, 伍文清, 等. 46例神经梅毒临床特征及影像学特点[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版),2016,10(5):570-574.
[22]	Kodarma K, Okada S, Komatsu N, et al. Relationship between MRI findings and prognosis for patients with general paresis[J]. Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci,2000,12(2):246-250.
[23]	吴雅丽, 许东梅, 黄宇明, 等. 以精神症状首发的麻痹性痴呆患者20例临床分析[J]. 大连医科大学学报,2017,39(2):161-164.
[24]	Zhang HL, Lin LR, Liu GL, et al. Clinical spectrum of neurosyphilis among HIV-negative patients in the modern era[J]. Dermatology, 2013,226(2):148-156.

导联	GPI组（42例）	AN组（43例）	t值	P值
FP1	0.435 ± 0.107	0.444 ± 0.128	0.373	0.710
FP2	0.428 ± 0.112	0.445 ± 0.129	0.641	0.523
F3	0.417 ± 0.116	0.468 ± 0.128	2.792	0.043^a
F4	0.413 ± 0.115	0.463 ± 0.130	2.753	0.045^a
C3	0.407 ± 0.116	0.427 ± 0.125	0.776	0.440
C4	0.405 ± 0.120	0.462 ± 0.125	3.017	0.031^a
P3	0.405 ± 0.121	0.426 ± 0.127	0.775	0.441
P4	0.403 ± 0.121	0.421 ± 0.123	0.667	0.507
O1	0.402 ± 0.121	0.423 ± 0.128	0.776	0.440
O2	0.403 ± 0.120	0.420 ± 0.127	0.627	0.533
F7	0.399 ± 0.117	0.416 ± 0.129	0.629	0.531
F8	0.407 ± 0.121	0.416 ± 0.126	0.317	0.752
T3	0.403 ± 0.119	0.418 ± 0.128	0.578	0.565
T4	0.402 ± 0.117	0.414 ± 0.129	0.426	0.671
T5	0.398 ± 0.117	0.457 ± 0.128	2.711	0.047^a
T6	0.395 ± 0.115	0.456 ± 0.128	2.766	0.044^a

导联	GPI组（42例）	AN组（43例）	t值	P值
FP1	0.435 ± 0.107	0.444 ± 0.128	0.373	0.710
FP2	0.428 ± 0.112	0.445 ± 0.129	0.641	0.523
F3	0.417 ± 0.116	0.468 ± 0.128	2.792	0.043^a
F4	0.413 ± 0.115	0.463 ± 0.130	2.753	0.045^a
C3	0.407 ± 0.116	0.427 ± 0.125	0.776	0.440
C4	0.405 ± 0.120	0.462 ± 0.125	3.017	0.031^a
P3	0.405 ± 0.121	0.426 ± 0.127	0.775	0.441
P4	0.403 ± 0.121	0.421 ± 0.123	0.667	0.507
O1	0.402 ± 0.121	0.423 ± 0.128	0.776	0.440
O2	0.403 ± 0.120	0.420 ± 0.127	0.627	0.533
F7	0.399 ± 0.117	0.416 ± 0.129	0.629	0.531
F8	0.407 ± 0.121	0.416 ± 0.126	0.317	0.752
T3	0.403 ± 0.119	0.418 ± 0.128	0.578	0.565
T4	0.402 ± 0.117	0.414 ± 0.129	0.426	0.671
T5	0.398 ± 0.117	0.457 ± 0.128	2.711	0.047^a
T6	0.395 ± 0.115	0.456 ± 0.128	2.766	0.044^a

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export