4.3 Article

Impaired orthostatic blood pressure recovery and cognitive performance at two-year follow up in older adults: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing

期刊

CLINICAL AUTONOMIC RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 127-133

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10286-016-0340-3

关键词

Orthostatic hypotension; Cognition; Ageing; Population; Longitudinal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prospective investigations of the association between impaired orthostatic blood pressure (BP) regulation and cognitive decline in older adults are limited, and findings to-date have been mixed. The aim of this study was to determine whether impaired recovery of orthostatic BP was associated with change in cognitive function over a 2-year period, in a population based sample of community dwelling older adults. Data from the first two waves of the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing were analysed. Orthostatic BP was measured during a lying to standing orthostatic stress protocol at wave 1 using beat-to-beat digital plethysmography, and impaired recovery of BP at 40 s post stand was investigated. Cognitive function was assessed at wave 1 and wave 2 (2 years later) using the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), verbal fluency and word recall tasks. After adjustment for measured, potential confounders, and multiple imputation for missing data, the change in the number of errors between waves on the MMSE was 10 % higher [IRR (95 % CI) = 1.10 (0.96, 1.26)] in those with impaired recovery at 40 s. However, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.17). Impaired BP recovery was not associated with change in performance on any of the other cognitive measures. There was no clear evidence for an association between impaired recovery of orthostatic BP and change in cognition over a 2-year period in this nationally representative cohort of older adults. Longer follow-up and more detailed cognitive testing would be advantageous to further investigate the relationship between orthostatic BP and cognitive 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

4.3
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