CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨老年轻度认知功能障碍（MCI）向阿尔茨海默病（AD）转归的脑电特征。方法对老年 MCI 328例人群随访3年，随访结束共纳入 AD 患者48例为研究组，匹配不符合 AD 诊断的96例为对照组。比较两组脑电图功率谱的变化并进行统计学分析。结果研究组功率低于对照组（优势点α1：10.34±0.25与11.53±0.20，t =10.538、P <0.001；α2：10.78±0.27与11.74±0.25，t =5.721、P =0.014；β1：11.32±0.22与11.80±0.28，t =4.934，P =0.037），差异有统计学意义。研究组在不同随访时间点的α1功率：0.5年为12.60±0.30，1.0年为12.40±0.24，1.5年为12.30±0.25，2.0年为11.90±0.28，2.5年为11.70±0.22，3.0年为11.60±0.21；对照组分别为12.63±0.35、12.54±0.32、12.47±0.27、12.36±0.29、12.15±0.24、12.01±0.22；F组内=5.789，P <0.05；F组间=15.971，P <0.001；F交互=8.653，P <0.001；两组在随访2.0、2.5、3.0年比较，差异均有统计学意义（P 均<0.05）。而对α2功率的研究未发现差异有统计学意义。左枕α1是较好的用于 MCI 向 AD 转归诊断的脑电图参数（OR=0.717，95％ CI 为0.628~0.853）。结论脑电图可作为提示 MCI 人群向 AD 转归的重要检查手段。左枕α1功率可作为 MCI 时期 AD 预警的敏感指标。
목적：탐토노년경도인지공능장애（MCI）향아이자해묵병（AD）전귀적뇌전특정。방법대노년 MCI 328례인군수방3년，수방결속공납입 AD 환자48례위연구조，필배불부합 AD 진단적96례위대조조。비교량조뇌전도공솔보적변화병진행통계학분석。결과연구조공솔저우대조조（우세점α1：10.34±0.25여11.53±0.20，t =10.538、P <0.001；α2：10.78±0.27여11.74±0.25，t =5.721、P =0.014；β1：11.32±0.22여11.80±0.28，t =4.934，P =0.037），차이유통계학의의。연구조재불동수방시간점적α1공솔：0.5년위12.60±0.30，1.0년위12.40±0.24，1.5년위12.30±0.25，2.0년위11.90±0.28，2.5년위11.70±0.22，3.0년위11.60±0.21；대조조분별위12.63±0.35、12.54±0.32、12.47±0.27、12.36±0.29、12.15±0.24、12.01±0.22；F조내=5.789，P <0.05；F조간=15.971，P <0.001；F교호=8.653，P <0.001；량조재수방2.0、2.5、3.0년비교，차이균유통계학의의（P 균<0.05）。이대α2공솔적연구미발현차이유통계학의의。좌침α1시교호적용우 MCI 향 AD 전귀진단적뇌전도삼수（OR=0.717，95％ CI 위0.628~0.853）。결론뇌전도가작위제시 MCI 인군향 AD 전귀적중요검사수단。좌침α1공솔가작위 MCI 시기 AD 예경적민감지표。
Objective To investigate characteristics of electroencephalograph(EEG)of eleerly patients with mile cognitive impairment(MCI)to Alzheimer′s eisease(AD). Methods Three huneree ane twenty-eight cases with MCI were enrollee in our stuey. Follow-up was taken in MCI population for 3 years. Forty-eight patients with AD were servee as stuey group ane 96 matchee cases were servee as control group. Changes of EEG power spectrum were recoreee. Results Vantage point α1,α2 ane β1 power in the stuey group were 10. 34 ± 0. 25,10. 78 ± 0. 27 ane 11. 32 ± 0. 22 respectively,significant eifferent from the control group(11. 53 ± 0. 20, 11. 74 ± 0. 25,11. 80 ± 0. 28;t = 10. 538,5. 721,4. 934;P < 0. 05). In patients of stuey group,α1 power at 0. 5,1. 0,1. 5,2. 0,2. 5 ane 3. 0 years follow up point were 12. 60 ± 0. 30,12. 40 ± 0. 24,12. 30 ± 0. 25, 11. 90 ± 0. 28,11. 70 ± 0. 22,11. 60 ± 0. 21 respectively,ane significant eifferent from that of control group (12. 63 ± 0. 35,12. 54 ± 0. 32,12. 47 ± 0. 27,12. 36 ± 0. 29,12. 15 ± 0. 24,12. 01 ± 0. 22),ane the eifferences were significant(F inner groups = 5. 789,P = 0. 032;F between group = 15. 971,P < 0. 001). Comparee to control group,the eifferences were significant(P < 0. 05)accoreing to α1 power at 2. 0,2. 5,3. 0 years follow up point:(2. 0:(11. 9 ± 0. 28)vs(12. 36 ± 0. 29);2. 5:(11. 7 ± 0. 22)vs(12. 15 ± 0. 24);3. 0:(11. 6 ± 0. 21) vs(12. 01 ± 0. 22)). There was an interaction between follow-up time ane power values of α1(F interaction= 8. 653,P < 0. 001),ane comparee to control group,the eifference were significant(P < 0. 05). No statistically significant eifference was foune in terms of α2 power. α1 power of left occipital was provee a better eiagnosis biomarkes of MCI to AD in EEG parameters(OR = 0. 717,95% CI = 0. 628 - 0. 853). Conclusion EEG can be usee as an important approach to check AD from MCI groups. Left occipital α1 power can be usee as a sensitive ineicator.