4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Breath holding index in detection of early cognitive decline

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 299, Issue 1-2, Pages 116-119

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.062

Keywords

Breath holding index; Vascular aging; Mild cognitive impairment; MoCa; MMSE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the study was to evaluate role of breath holding index (BHI) as a functional parameter for intracranial subclinical atherosclerotic changes in recognizing patients who are at risk for developing cognitive impairment of the vascular type. We included 60 volunteers divided into 3 groups according to age and presence of cognitive impairment (healthy subjects 30-40 years old, controls 60-70 years old and subjects with mild cognitive impairment 60-70 years old). We excluded individuals with moderate and severe carotid stenosis. There was a decreasing trend in the mean blood flow velocities of the intracranial blood vessels due to age increase, but it was not statistically significant. BHI values were 1.66 +/- 0.20 in the first group, 135 +/- 031 in the second and 0.69 +/- 030 in the third group. There was a statistically significant difference between the first two groups and the group with a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) score (29 +/- 1, 27 +/- 1 and 19 +/- 1 respectively), no statistically significant difference was found in Mini mental state exam (MMSE) score (29 +/- 1, 28 +/- 1, and 28 +/- 1 respectively). After regressing out age and conventional vascular risk factors, we found a good correlation between the decreasing trend in BHI values and MoCA score, and no statistically significant correlation between the BHI values and MMSE score. Results of our study show that BHI test as a parameter of impaired cerebrovascular reactivity (intracranial small vessel wall dysfunction) might differentiate individuals with early cognitive decline from healthy subjects. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available