Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024
Comparison of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and time in target range in predicting risk for cognitive outcomes in the SPRINT trial.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sible Isabel J, Nation Daniel A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and time in target range (TTR) are emerging vascular risk factors for dementia, independent of traditionally targeted mean BP.
OBJECTIVE: Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.
METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.
RESULTS: Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], p < 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], p < 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], p = 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], p < 0.001) in the intensive group only.
CONCLUSIONS: Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.
CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01206062.
OBJECTIVE: Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.
METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.
RESULTS: Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], p < 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], p < 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], p = 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], p < 0.001) in the intensive group only.
CONCLUSIONS: Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.
CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01206062.