4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Can beta stiffness index be proposed as risk factor for dementia

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 283, 期 1-2, 页码 13-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2009.02.339

关键词

Vascular aging; Carotid arteries; Beta stiffness index; Cerebrovascular atherosclerosis; Subclinical atherosclerosis; Ultrasonography; Doppler; Duplex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: Changes of arterial stiffness indicate alteration in arterial mechanics predisposing to the evolution of stroke or vascular dementia. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether ultrasound parameters, particularly beta stiffness index (BSI), should be further explored as independent markers or risk factors for dementia. Patients and methods: There were 38 demented patients included in this study (72.53 +/- 7.87 yrs) and 33 clinically healthy controls (68.85 +/- 3.52 yrs). Risk factors were noted and ultrasound measurements performed on common carotid artery (CCA) using eTracking software on Aloka ProSound ALPHA 10 with 13 MHz linear probe. Level of significance was p<0.05. Results: Arterial hypertension was present in 24 patients, atrial fibrillation in 9, diabetes in 3, and hypercholesterolemia in 18. Hypertension was present as a single risk factor in 15 controls with average diastolic blood pressure significantly lower in patients. Significantly higher in patients were mean intima-media thickness, systolic and diastolic CCA diameters (CD), and mean BSI in CCA bilaterally. Linear regression analysis for groups of Alzheimer's dementia and vascular dementia proved that MMSE of the two groups relates to CCA diameter change (CDc) and BSI change explaining up to 5% of variability. Conclusions: CD, CDc and BSI should be monitored in patients with cognitive decline and further explored as possible independent markers or risk factors; in future studies groups of demented and non-demented patients should be age, sex and risk factor matched. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据