BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral infarcts increase the risk for cognitive impairment. The relevance of location and number of infarcts with respect to cognitive function is less clear. METHODS: We studied the cross-sectional association between number and location of infarcts and cognitive performance in 4030 nondemented participants of the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study. Composite scores for memory, processing speed, and executive function were created from a neuropsychological battery. Subcortical, cortical, and cerebellar infarcts were identified on brain MRI. We performed linear regression analyses adjusted for demographic and vascular risk factors, depression, white matter lesions, and atrophy. RESULTS: Compared to participants with no infarcts, those with infarcts in multiple locations (n=287, 7%) had slower processing speed (beta=-0.19; P<0.001) and poorer memory (beta=-0.16; P<0.001) and executive function (beta=-0.12; P=0.003). Compared to no infarcts, the presence of either subcortical infarcts only (n=275; beta=-0.12; P=0.016) or cortical infarcts only (n=215; beta=-0.17; P=0.001) was associated with poorer memory performance. Compared to no infarcts, a combination of cortical and subcortical infarcts (n=45) was associated with slower processing speed (beta=-0.38; P<0.001) and poorer executive function (beta=-0.22; P=0.02), whereas a combination of cerebellar and subcortical infarcts (n=89) was associated with slower processing speed (beta=-0.15; P=0.04). Infarcts in all 3 locations was associated with slower processing speed (beta=-0.33; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Having infarcts in >1 location is associated with poor performance in memory, processing speed, and executive function, independent of cardiovascular comorbidities, white matter lesions, and brain atrophy, suggesting that both the number and the distribution of infarcts jointly contribute to cognitive impairment.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Cerebral infarcts increase the risk for cognitive impairment. The relevance of location and number of infarcts with respect to cognitive function is less clear. METHODS: We studied the cross-sectional association between number and location of infarcts and cognitive performance in 4030 nondemented participants of the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study. Composite scores for memory, processing speed, and executive function were created from a neuropsychological battery. Subcortical, cortical, and cerebellar infarcts were identified on brain MRI. We performed linear regression analyses adjusted for demographic and vascular risk factors, depression, white matter lesions, and atrophy. RESULTS: Compared to participants with no infarcts, those with infarcts in multiple locations (n=287, 7%) had slower processing speed (beta=-0.19; P<0.001) and poorer memory (beta=-0.16; P<0.001) and executive function (beta=-0.12; P=0.003). Compared to no infarcts, the presence of either subcortical infarcts only (n=275; beta=-0.12; P=0.016) or cortical infarcts only (n=215; beta=-0.17; P=0.001) was associated with poorer memory performance. Compared to no infarcts, a combination of cortical and subcortical infarcts (n=45) was associated with slower processing speed (beta=-0.38; P<0.001) and poorer executive function (beta=-0.22; P=0.02), whereas a combination of cerebellar and subcortical infarcts (n=89) was associated with slower processing speed (beta=-0.15; P=0.04). Infarcts in all 3 locations was associated with slower processing speed (beta=-0.33; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Having infarcts in >1 location is associated with poor performance in memory, processing speed, and executive function, independent of cardiovascular comorbidities, white matter lesions, and brain atrophy, suggesting that both the number and the distribution of infarcts jointly contribute to cognitive impairment.
Authors: L J Launer; K Berger; M M B Breteler; C Dufouil; R Fuhrer; S Giampaoli; L-G Nilsson; A Pajak; M de Ridder; E J van Dijk; S Sans; R Schmidt; A Hofman Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Sarah E Vermeer; Niels D Prins; Tom den Heijer; Albert Hofman; Peter J Koudstaal; Monique M B Breteler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert S Wilson; Carlos F Mendes De Leon; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; Julia L Bienias; Denis A Evans; David A Bennett Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John Danesh; Jeremy G Wheeler; Gideon M Hirschfield; Shinichi Eda; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Ann Rumley; Gordon D O Lowe; Mark B Pepys; Vilmundur Gudnason Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Clinton B Wright; Joanne R Festa; Myunghee C Paik; Alexis Schmiedigen; Truman R Brown; Mitsuhiro Yoshita; Charles DeCarli; Ralph Sacco; Yaakov Stern Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Gary F Mitchell; Mark A van Buchem; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; John D Gotal; Maria K Jonsdottir; Ólafur Kjartansson; Melissa Garcia; Thor Aspelund; Tamara B Harris; Vilmundur Gudnason; Lenore J Launer Journal: Brain Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jie Ding; Sigurður Sigurðsson; Pálmi V Jónsson; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Andreas Charidimou; Oscar L Lopez; Mark A van Buchem; Vilmundur Guðnason; Lenore J Launer Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: David S Knopman; Michael E Griswold; Seth T Lirette; Rebecca F Gottesman; Kejal Kantarci; A Richey Sharrett; Clifford R Jack; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Andrea L C Schneider; B Gwen Windham; Laura H Coker; Marilyn S Albert; Thomas H Mosley Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lara G Sigurdardottir; Sarah C Markt; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; Thor Aspelund; Katja Fall; Eva Schernhammer; Jennifer R Rider; Lenore Launer; Tamara Harris; Meir J Stampfer; Vilmundur Gudnason; Charles A Czeisler; Steven W Lockley; Unnur A Valdimarsdottir; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Biol Rhythms Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 3.182