Blood-brain barrier disruption in humans is independently associated with increased matrix metalloproteinase-9

Abstract

Background and purpose: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) may play a role in blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption after ischemic stroke. We hypothesized that plasma concentrations of MMP-9 are associated with a marker of BBB disruption in patients evaluated for acute stroke.

Methods: Patients underwent MRI on presentation and approximately 24 hours later. The MRI marker, termed hyperintense acute reperfusion injury marker (HARM), is gadolinium enhancement of cerebrospinal fluid on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI. Plasma MMP-9 and tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Logistic regression models tested for predictors of HARM on 24-hour follow-up scans separately for MMP-9 and the ratio of MMP-9 to TIMP-1.

Results: For the 41 patients enrolled, diagnoses were: acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome, 33 (80.6%); intracerebral hemorrhage, 6 (14.6%); stroke mimic, 1 (2.4%); and no stroke, 1 (2.4%). HARM was present in 17 (41.5%) patients. In model 1, HARM was associated with baseline plasma MMP-9 concentration (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.019; P=0.033). In model 2, HARM was associated with the ratio of MMP-9 to tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (OR, 4.94; 95% CI, 1.27-19.14; P=0.021).

Conclusions: Baseline MMP-9 was a significant predictor of HARM at 24-hour follow-up, supporting the hypothesis that MMP-9 is associated with BBB disruption. If the association between MMP-9 and BBB disruption is confirmed in future studies, HARM may be a useful imaging marker to evaluate MMP-9 inhibition in ischemic stroke and other populations with BBB disruption.

Figure 1

Representations of HARM: A: Three individual cases of HARM. From Left: In the first two images areas of HARM are demonstrated by arrows. In the last image, HARM can be seen throughout the left hemisphere. B: Three individual cases of No HARM. From Left: The firs two images have areas of hyperintensity within one or two slices of MRI image, and are therefore read as “No HARM”. The last image contains no areas of hyperintensity.