OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of three antihypertensive medications on cerebral hemodynamic and cognitive function in hypertensive individuals with executive dysfunction. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three individuals aged 60 and older with hypertension and executive dysfunction. INTERVENTION: Lisinopril, candesartan, or hydrochlorothiazide for 1 year. MEASUREMENTS: Cerebral blood flow velocity (BFV; transcranial Doppler ultrasonography during rest, sitting, standing, hypercapnia, and hypocapnia), cognition, and blood pressure were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models were used to compare the three groups. RESULTS: Of the 53 participants, 47 had successful insonation (mean age 72; 70% white; 57% women). There was a tendency toward an increase in BFV in the candesartan group and a decrease in the lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide groups (between-group P = .57) that was significant in those with low BFV at baseline (<median 27.6 cm/s, between-group P = .03). The candesartan group also had the greatest improvement in executive function (Trail Making Test Part B improved by 17.1 seconds, vs hydrochlorothiazide improved by 4.2 seconds and lisinopril worsened by 14.4 seconds, P = .008). Carbon dioxide vasoreactivity and vasomotor range declined significantly in the lisinopril (within-group P = .001 for vasoreactivity and .02 for vasomotor range) and hydrochlorothiazide groups (within-group P = .10 and .009, respectively) but not in the candesartan group (within-group P = .25 and .38, respectively; between-group P = .30 and .46, respectively). CONCLUSION:Angiotensin receptor blockers may preferentially preserve cerebral hemodynamics and executive function in individuals with executive dysfunction. These findings warrant further investigation in a larger trial.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of three antihypertensive medications on cerebral hemodynamic and cognitive function in hypertensive individuals with executive dysfunction. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three individuals aged 60 and older with hypertension and executive dysfunction. INTERVENTION: Lisinopril, candesartan, or hydrochlorothiazide for 1 year. MEASUREMENTS: Cerebral blood flow velocity (BFV; transcranial Doppler ultrasonography during rest, sitting, standing, hypercapnia, and hypocapnia), cognition, and blood pressure were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models were used to compare the three groups. RESULTS: Of the 53 participants, 47 had successful insonation (mean age 72; 70% white; 57% women). There was a tendency toward an increase in BFV in the candesartan group and a decrease in the lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide groups (between-group P = .57) that was significant in those with low BFV at baseline (<median 27.6 cm/s, between-group P = .03). The candesartan group also had the greatest improvement in executive function (Trail Making Test Part B improved by 17.1 seconds, vs hydrochlorothiazide improved by 4.2 seconds and lisinopril worsened by 14.4 seconds, P = .008). Carbon dioxide vasoreactivity and vasomotor range declined significantly in the lisinopril (within-group P = .001 for vasoreactivity and .02 for vasomotor range) and hydrochlorothiazide groups (within-group P = .10 and .009, respectively) but not in the candesartan group (within-group P = .25 and .38, respectively; between-group P = .30 and .46, respectively). CONCLUSION: Angiotensin receptor blockers may preferentially preserve cerebral hemodynamics and executive function in individuals with executive dysfunction. These findings warrant further investigation in a larger trial.
Authors: Jim Grigsby; Kaye Kaye; Susan M Shetterly; Judith Baxter; Nora E Morgenstern; Richard F Hamman Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Donald R Royall; David V Espino; Marsha J Polk; Raymond F Palmer; Kyriakos S Markides Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Michael L Alosco; Michael A Sugarman; Lilah M Besser; Yorghos Tripodis; Brett Martin; Joseph N Palmisano; Neil W Kowall; Rhoda Au; Jesse Mez; Charles DeCarli; Thor D Stein; Ann C McKee; Ronald J Killiany; Robert A Stern Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: X Fan; X Song; M Zhao; L F Jarskog; R Natarajan; N Shukair; O Freudenreich; D C Henderson; D C Goff Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Katalin Réka Czuriga-Kovács; Csilla Cecília Szekeres; Zoltán Bajkó; Krisztina Csapó; László Oláh; Mária Tünde Magyar; Sándor Molnár; Dániel Czuriga; László Kardos; Andrea Bojtor Burainé; Dániel Bereczki; Pál Soltész; László Csiba Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 3.738