4.5 Article

High hair cortisol concentrations predict worse cognitive outcome after stroke: Results from the TABASCO prospective cohort study

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 133-139

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.05.013

关键词

Hair cortisol concentrations; Post-stroke cognitive decline; Dementia

资金

  1. American Federation for Aging Research [RAG11482]
  2. U.S. - Israel Bi-national Science Foundation [2011344]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: The role of stress-related endocrine dysregulation in the development of cognitive changes following a stroke. needs further elucidation. We explored this issue in a longitudinal study on stroke survivors using hair cortisol concentrations (HCC), a measure of integrated long-term cortisol levels. Methods: Participants were consecutive cognitively intact first-ever mild-moderate ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) survivors from the Tel Aviv Brain Acute Stroke Cohort (TABASCO) study. They underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning and were cognitively assessed at admission, and at 6, 12 and 24 months post-stroke. Scalp hair samples were obtained during the initial hospitalization. Results: Full data on baseline HCC, MRI scans and 2 years neuropsychological assessments were available for 65 patients. Higher HCC were significantly associated with a larger lesion volume and with worse cognitive results 6, 12 and 24 months post-stroke on most of the neurocognitive tests. 15.4% of the participants went on to develop clinically significant cognitive decline in the follow-up period, and higher HCC at baseline were found to be a significant risk factor for this decline, after adjustment for age, gender, body mass index and APOE e4 carrier status (HR = 6.553, p = 0.038). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that individuals with higher HCC, which probably reflect higher long-term cortisol release, are prone to develop cognitive decline following an acute stroke or TIA.

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