4.7 Article

Long-term blood pressure patterns in midlife and dementia in later life: Findings from the Framingham Heart Study

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.13356

关键词

blood pressure; dementia; midlife; prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the association between long-term blood pressure patterns during midlife and the development of dementia in later life. The results suggest that high cumulative blood pressure in midlife is associated with an increased risk of dementia, while blood pressure variability is not significantly associated with dementia.
INTRODUCTIONLong-term blood pressure (BP) measures, such as visit-to-visit BP variability (BPV) and cumulative BP, are strong indicators of cardiovascular risks. This study modeled up to 20 years of BP patterns representative of midlife by using BPV and cumulative BP, then examined their associations with development of dementia in later life. METHODSFor 3201 individuals from the Framingham Heart Study, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association between long-term BP patterns during midlife and the development of dementia (ages & GE; 65). RESULTSAfter adjusting for covariates, every quartile increase in midlife cumulative BP was associated with a sequential increase in the risk of developing dementia (e.g., highest quartile of cumulative systolic blood pressure had approximately 2.5-fold increased risk of all-cause dementia). BPV was not significantly associated with dementia. DISCUSSIONFindings suggest that cumulative BP over the course of midlife predicts risk of dementia in later life.Long-term blood pressure (BP) patterns are strong indicators of vascular risks.Cumulative BP and BP variability (BPV) were used to reflect BP patterns across midlife.High cumulative BP in midlife is associated with increased dementia risk.Visit-to-visit BPV was not associated with the onset of dementia. HIGHLIGHTS

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

4.7
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