4.7 Article

Is mild cognitive impairment prodromal for vascular dementia like Alzheimer's disease?

期刊

STROKE
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 1981-1985

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000024432.34557.10

关键词

Alzheimer disease; cognitive disorders; dementia, vascular; psychometrics; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and probably other forms of dementia. Some subtypes of vascular dementia (VaD) may possess minor neuropathological changes of AD that may contribute to cognitive impairments. It was posited that MCI, identified by criteria described here, might present as a prodrome for VaD and AD. Methods-Serial Mini-Mental State Examination was administered at 3- to 6-month intervals, and neuroimaging was performed annually. Subtle cognitive dysfunctions were weighted and measured according to MCI criteria defined here. Subjects identified with MCI were then followed up for an additional 3.88 +/- 3.01 years. Diagnoses of VaD and AD were made according to established criteria. Results-During 3.72 +/- 2.94 years of follow-up of the original normative subjects, 73 of 291 (25.1%) developed MCI. Of the 27 subjects who developed VaD, 15 (55.6%) had prodromal MCI. Of these, two thirds were subclassified as having small-vessel dementia. The remaining 12 patients with VaD (44.4%) were diagnosed directly from a cognitively normal status without preceding MCI. These were predominantly multi-infarct or strategic-infarct dementia (66.7%). An additional 35 MCI subjects (47.9%) developed AD. Both VaD and AD diagnosed after MCI prodromes manifested similar spectral domains of cognitive impairments, which included memory, during their MCI stages. Conclusions-In some VaD subtypes, particularly those caused by subcortical microvascular disease, dementia may be preceded by MCI, which has similar domains of cognitive impairment and a similar progressive course that may mimic AD.

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