4.5 Article

Gait Dysfunction in Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 71, 期 -, 页码 S95-S103

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-181227

关键词

Cognition; gait; motoric cognitive risk syndrome

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R56AG057548, R01AG044007-01A1, R01AG036921-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome is a cognitive-motor syndrome associated with increased risk of transition to dementia. The clinical phenotype of MCR is not yet established. Objective: To systematically assess clinical gait abnormalities in older adults with MCR. Methods: Of the 522 community-dwelling non-demented adults aged 65 and older enrolled in the Central Control of Mobility in Aging study, 43 were diagnosed with MCR (47% women) based on presence of cognitive complaints and slow gait velocity (MCRv). Four additional subtypes of MCR were defined by substituting slow gait with short stride length (MCRsl, n = 41), slow swing time (MCRsw, n = 21), high stride length variability (MCRslv, n= 24), and high swing time variability (MCRswv, n = 25). The prevalence of clinical gait abnormalities (neurological or non-neurological) in MCR overall (n = 81) and subtypes was studied. We also examined if gait abnormalities predicted further cognitive and functional decline in MCR cases. Results: Most clinical gait abnormalities were mild (walked without assistance) in the five MCR subtypes (44 to 61%). Neurological (range 24 to 46%) and non-neurological gait abnormalities (33 to 61%) were common in all MCR subtypes. Neurological gaits were most frequent in MCRs1 (46%) and non-neurological gaits in MCRv (61%). Over a median 3.02 years of follow-up, presence of gait abnormality in MCR cases at baseline predicted worsening disability scores (estimate 0.17, p-value = 0.033) but not decline on cognitive scores (p-value = 0.056). Conclusion: Clinical gait abnormalities are common in MCR syndrome and its subtypes, and are associated with accelerated functional decline.

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