Event-Related Evoked Potential P300 in Frontotemporal Dementia

• Published in: Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 27 - 32
• Main Authors: Jiménez-Escrig, A., Fernandez-Lorente, J., Herrero, A., Baron, M., Lousa, M., de Blas, G., Gobernado, J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel, Switzerland Karger 01.01.2002; S. Karger AG
• Subjects: Adult and adolescent clinical studies; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis; Alzheimer Disease - physiopathology; Analysis of Variance; Biological and medical sciences; Case-Control Studies; Dementia; Dementia - diagnosis; Dementia - physiopathology; Electrodiagnosis. Electric activity recording; Event-Related Potentials, P300; Evoked Potentials, Auditory; Female; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nervous system; Neuropsychological Tests; Organic mental disorders. Neuropsychology; Original Research Article; Predictive Value of Tests; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Frontotemporal dementia; P300; Dementia; Performance evaluation; Human; Temporal lobe; Frontal lobe; Cognitive disorder; Response amplitude; Differential diagnostic; Electrodiagnosis; Symptomatology; Event Related Potentials Roth; Auditory evoked potential; Reaction time; Response latency; Diagnosis; Technique; Comparative study
• ISSN: 1420-8008; 1421-9824
• DOI: 10.1159/000048630

There are no studies on event-related cognitive potentials in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). In order to evaluate the aptitude and usefulness of the event-related P300 potential in this disease, we prospectively examined 60 cases: 11 patients with FTD diagnosed according to the Lund and Manchester criteria and Neary consensus criteria, 33 patients with a probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis following NINCDS-ADRDA criteria, and 16 normal controls. P300 latency, amplitude and reaction time were recorded using an auditory oddball paradigm. In this sample, P300 potential could be reliably performed by 10/11 FTD patients, notwithstanding their language or executive function deficiencies. The FTD group P300 mean latency was midway between the normal controls and the Alzheimer’s disease group (ANOVA F 2, 74199 = 16.5; p = 0.00003). The latency range of the FTD patients were within normal values (average plus 1.96 standard deviation of the values of the control group), except for one case with a latency of 448 ms. Post hoc Newman-Keuls analysis showed that the P300 latencies of the control and FTD groups did not differ significantly (p = 0.15) and that the Alzheimer’s disease group had a delayed P300 latency that differed significantly from that of the FTD (p = 0.002) and control group (p = 0.0002). However, there was overlapping in P300 latency values of the three groups. Despite these differences in latencies, the reaction time was significantly increased in the FTD and the Alzheimer’s disease groups. These findings indicate that the P300 potential is less affected in patients with FTD than those with Alzheimer’s disease. This fact could aid in FTD diagnosis, differential diagnosis with Alzheimer’s disease and possibly its clinical management.