Neuroimaging of the child with developmental delay

Reduced Cortical Complexity in Children with Developmental Delay in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Developmental delay (DD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by delays in multiple domains. The investigation of brain structure in DD has been enhanced by advanced neuroimaging techniques that can identify regional surface deformities. Neuroimaging studies have identified structural brain abnormalities in individuals with DD, but research specific to the Saudi Arabian population is limited. In this study, we examine the neuroanatomical abnormalities in the cortical and subcortical regions of Saudi Arabian children with DD.

METHOD

A T1-weighted, 1-mm-thick MRI was used to acquire structural brain images of 29 children with DD and age-matched healthy controls.

RESULTS

Analysis of the MRI data revealed significant differences in several cortical and subcortical structures of gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) in several brain regions of the DD group. Specifically, significant deformities were observed in the caudate nucleus, globus pallidus, frontal gyrus, pars opercularis, pars orbitalis, cingulate gyrus, and subcallosal gyrus. These findings suggest disrupted neurodevelopment in these regions, which may contribute to the cognitive, motor, and behavioral impairments commonly observed in individuals with DD.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides valuable insights into the neuroanatomical differences in Saudi Arabian children with DD. Our results provide evidence for cortical and subcortical abnormalities in DD. Deformities in the observed regions may contribute to cognitive impairment, emotional dysregulation, mood disorders, and language deficits commonly observed in DD. The structural analysis may enable the identification of neuroanatomical biomarkers to facilitate the early diagnosis or progression of DD. These results suggest that lower cortical complexity in DD children due to alterations in networks may play a critical role in early brain development.

Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Patients with Developmental Delay in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Background

Developmental delay is a major health problem throughout the world causing significant individual disability. Even though physical examination and patient history are the most important and basic evaluations of patients with developmental delay, additional investigations are usually required in supporting or reaching a diagnosis among which is neuroimaging. This study aims to assess brain Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patterns in patients presented with developmental delay.

Method

A retrospective analysis of 164 patients who had undergone brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) evaluation for the developmental delay was done. The study was conducted between March to November 2021 G.C at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH). The patients' clinical history and magnetic resonance imaging reports were reviewed from their medical records. All patients with developmental delay who had brain MRI evaluation at TASH and at one private diagnostic center in Addis Ababa were included in the study.

Results

A total of 164 patients were included in this study of which 95(57.9%) were male and 69(42.1%) female patients were seen. A total of 120 patients (73.2%) showed abnormal brain MRI studies. Previous neurovascular insults were the most common abnormalities seen in 75(45.7%) patients followed by imaging findings of congenital and developmental abnormalities seen in 20(12.2%) patients.

Conclusion

Brain MRI is an important input in the evaluation of patients with developmental delay. It can give evidence for the cause of developmental delay, especially in the diagnosis of perinatal/hypoxic-ischemic insults, and congenital and developmental malformations.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.

Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Children With Developmental Delay: Time to Look Beyond Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

Developmental delay (DD) is an important long-term neuromorbidity owing to various insults to the developing brain and neuroimaging plays a key role in evaluating these children. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is the only noninvasive method to determine the levels of various metabolites in the brain which aids in delineating the underlying abnormalities. A total of 48 children aged between 6 months to 6 years with developmental delay were included and evaluated with neuroimaging in our study. Sensitivity of MRS in children with DD and DD plus (DD along with seizures, abnormal motor findings, behavior, brainstem evoked response audiometry, visual assessment, and microcephaly) was 81.2% and 89.6% respectively. 86.6% of children with microcephaly had abnormal MRS. MRS detected abnormalities in two-thirds of children with normal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Children with behavioral abnormalities had significantly lower N-acetyl aspartate (NAA)-creatine and NAA-choline ratios on MRS. Thus, MRS is additive to MRI in delineating the underlying pathophysiology in children with DD.

Is Brain MRI Needed in Diagnostic Evaluation of Mild Intellectual Disability?

AIM

The purpose of our study was to suggest an imaging strategy and guidelines for the selection of the children with mild intellectual disability (ID) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to avoid unnecessary imaging.

METHODS

The brain MRIs and patient reports of 471 children were reviewed for the imaging findings and ID severity. The correlation between the clinical and brain MRI findings was analyzed in the 305 children with mild ID.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (12.5%) of the children with mild ID had significant abnormal brain MRI findings. Thirty-five of these had other neurological symptoms or diseases in addition to ID, which were an indication for brain MRI. In the logistic regression analysis, seizures (in patients without an epilepsy diagnosis), epilepsy, movement disorders, dysmorphia, encephalitis, traumatic brain injury, and abnormal head size were statistically significant symptoms or comorbidities associated with abnormal MRI findings. Only three children (1.0%) with mild ID had a significant MRI finding without any other clinical symptoms or disease.

CONCLUSION

Routine MRI in children with mild ID without specific neurological symptoms, dysmorphic features, or related diseases is not suggested for revealing an etiology of mild ID. Since children with ID usually need to be sedated for MRI, routine imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of mild ID should be carefully considered. Clinical examination, other symptoms, and related diseases should be carefully assessed to decide the need for MRI.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to July 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (via CENTRAL) using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo for children undergoing non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2390 children. The studies were all conducted in hospitals that provided neurodiagnostic services. Most studies assessed the proportion of sedation failure during the neurodiagnostic procedure, time for adequate sedation, and potential adverse effects associated with the sedative agent.The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed, as reflected by a wide variation in their 'Risk of bias' profiles. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 13 studies had high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in single small studies.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had lower sedation failure when compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a higher risk of sedation failure after one dose compared to those who received intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study, low-quality evidence), but after two doses there was no evidence of a significant difference between the two groups (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study, very low-quality evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared to have more sedation failure when compared with music therapy, but the quality of evidence was very low for this outcome (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study). Sedation failure rates were similar between oral chloral hydrate, oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam.Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to achieve adequate sedation when compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence), and rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study, low-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence).No data were available to assess the proportion of children with successful completion of neurodiagnostic procedure without interruption by the child awakening. Most trials did not assess adequate sedation as measured by specific validated scales, except in the comparison of chloral hydrate versus intranasal midazolam and oral promethazine.Compared to dexmedetomidine, chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 12.04 95% CI 1.58 to 91.96). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate (including behavioural change, oxygen desaturation) although there was an increased risk of adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was very variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine for children undergoing paediatric neurodiagnostic procedures. The sedation failure was similar for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. When compared with intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy, oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate. However, it must be noted that the evidence for the outcomes for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against intravenous pentobarbital and music therapy was of very low to low quality, therefore the corresponding findings should be interpreted with caution.Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially the risk of major adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation.