4.6 Article

Retinal Microvascular Signs and Cognitive Impairment

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 57, Issue 10, Pages 1892-1896

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02459.x

Keywords

dementia; retina; microcirculation

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To examine the association between retinal microvascular signs, as a proxy for cerebral microvascular disease, and cognitive impairment. DESIGN Cross-sectional population-based study. SETTING Urban population survey PARTICIPANTS One thousand nine hundred eighty-eight persons aged 49 to 97. MEASUREMENTS All participants underwent retinal photography and had the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) administered by trained personnel. Retinal photographs were masked and graded for retinopathy signs (microaneurysms, hemorrhages, hard exudates, cotton wool spots), and retinal vessel calibers were measured using a validated computer-assisted method. Cognitive impairment was defined as an MMSE score of 23 or less, in line with other epidemiological studies. RESULTS Cognitive impairment was present in 121 participants (6.1%). In the total population, after adjusting for age, sex, blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, smoking, cardiovascular disease, education, and other factors, retinal venular dilation was associated with cognitive impairment (odds ratio (OR)=1.8, 95% confidence interval (95% CI)=1.0-3.2, P=.03). In persons with hypertension, retinopathy signs (adjusted OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.0-3.2, P=.05) and retinal venular dilation (adjusted OR=2.7, 95% CI=1.2-6.1, P=.01) were associated with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION Retinal microvascular signs are associated with significant cognitive impairment, particularly in older persons with hypertension. These findings suggest that cerebral microvascular changes may contribute to cognitive deterioration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available