A qualitative and quantitative magnetic resonance diffusion study investigating the pathogenesis of cryptococcal-induced visual loss.

Abstract

Background: Cryptococcal induced visual loss is common and increasingly becoming a debilitating consequence in survivors of cryptococcal meningitis (CM). Conflicting reports of the optic neuritis and papilloedema models of visual loss have delayed the introduction of effective interventional strategies for prevention and treatment of visual loss in CM. Qualitative and quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the optic nerves have proven useful in the examination of the microstructure of the optic nerve especially in optic neuritis. Its application has been extrapolated to other optic nerve disorders such as ischaemic optic neuropathy and glaucoma. The aim of this study is to elucidate the pathogenesis of cryptococcal-induced visual loss using diffusion imaging of the optic nerve as an investigational tool. Method: Full ethical approval was obtained from the Greys Hospital, Department of Health and University of KwaZulu Natal Ethics Committees. Reliable and reproducible optic nerve diffusion techniques were first developed and optimized on 29 healthy volunteers at Greys Hospital, Neurology and Radiology departments using a Philips 1.5 Tesla Gyroscan. Informed consent was also obtained from 95 patients suffering from CM (≥18 yrs. of age), 14 patients with papilloedema and 14 patients with optic neuritis from other causes, recruited from Greys and Edendale Hospitals. Patients underwent full neuro-ophthalmological assessments, CSF examination, haematological workup, CD4 count, (viral load for some), electrophysiological assessment of vision [Visual evoked potential (VEP) and Humphreys visual fields (HVF)], Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan of the brain and orbits and DWI and DTI of the optic nerves. Results and Discussion: Visual loss is common in CM, occurring in 34.6-48%. Optic neuritis was uncommon as evidenced by a lack of signal change and lack of enhancement within the optic nerve in all patients scanned. The peri-optic CSF space was not dilated and the optic nerve diameter was not increased regardless of CSF pressure and visual status. Swollen optic discs occurred in only 25% of patients whereas raised intracranial pressure (> 20cmCSF) was demonstrated in 69-71% of patients. Therefore visual loss could not be explained by papilloedema alone. The VEP P100 latency was shown to be a useful screening test for subclinical optic nerve disease in CM, but HVF was not. The optic nerve diffusion imaging used was reliable and reproducible and produced diffusion parameters equivalent to other investigators in the field. Neither optic nerve movement nor the CSF signal was demonstrated to impact significantly on optic nerve diffusion parameters. Optic nerve diffusion imaging did not demonstrate similarities between CM and papilloedema or optic neuritis regardless of CSF pressure or vision. Conclusion: The rarity of optic neuritis in CM and the disparity between papilloedema and visual loss together with the lack of support from diffusion studies suggest a 3rd mechanism of visual loss viz. the optic nerve compartment syndrome. Good clinical support is provided by a case report for this hypothesis that shows re-opening of the peri-optic CSF space and return of the peri-optic CSF signal on MRI with lowering of intracranial pressure and antifungal treatment.