Dae Hyun Kim1,2, Francine Grodstein3, Anne B Newman4, Paulo H M Chaves5, Michelle C Odden6, Ronald Klein7, Mark J Sarnak8, Lewis A Lipsitz1,2. 1. Division of Gerontology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew Senior Life, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Benjamin Leon Center for Geriatric Research and Education, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. 6. School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 7. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 8. Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the associations between microvascular and macrovascular abnormalities and cognitive and physical function DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the Cardiovascular Health Study (1998-1999). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with available data on three or more of five microvascular abnormalities (brain, retina, kidney) and three or more of six macrovascular abnormalities (brain, carotid artery, heart, peripheral artery) (N = 2,452; mean age 79.5). MEASUREMENTS: Standardized composite scores derived from three cognitive tests (Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, Digit-Symbol Substitution Test, Trail-Making Test (TMT)) and three physical tests (gait speed, grip strength, 5-time sit to stand) RESULTS: Participants with high microvascular and macrovascular burden had worse cognitive (mean score difference = -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.37 to -0.24) and physical (mean score difference = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.26) function than those with low microvascular and macrovascular burden. Individuals with high microvascular burden alone had similarly lower scores than those with high macrovascular burden alone (cognitive function: -0.16, 95% CI = -0.24 to -0.08 vs -0.13, 95% CI = -0.20 to -0.06; physical function: -0.15, 95% CI = -0.22 to -0.08 vs -0.12, 95% CI = -0.18 to -0.06). Psychomotor speed and working memory, assessed using the TMT, were only impaired in the presence of high microvascular burden. Of the 11 vascular abnormalities considered, white matter hyperintensity, cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate, large brain infarct, and ankle-arm index were independently associated with cognitive and physical function. CONCLUSION: Microvascular and macrovascular abnormalities assessed using noninvasive tests of the brain, kidney, and peripheral artery were independently associated with poor cognitive and physical function in older adults. Future research should evaluate the usefulness of these tests in prognostication.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the associations between microvascular and macrovascular abnormalities and cognitive and physical function DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the Cardiovascular Health Study (1998-1999). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with available data on three or more of five microvascular abnormalities (brain, retina, kidney) and three or more of six macrovascular abnormalities (brain, carotid artery, heart, peripheral artery) (N = 2,452; mean age 79.5). MEASUREMENTS: Standardized composite scores derived from three cognitive tests (Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, Digit-Symbol Substitution Test, Trail-Making Test (TMT)) and three physical tests (gait speed, grip strength, 5-time sit to stand) RESULTS: Participants with high microvascular and macrovascular burden had worse cognitive (mean score difference = -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.37 to -0.24) and physical (mean score difference = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.26) function than those with low microvascular and macrovascular burden. Individuals with high microvascular burden alone had similarly lower scores than those with high macrovascular burden alone (cognitive function: -0.16, 95% CI = -0.24 to -0.08 vs -0.13, 95% CI = -0.20 to -0.06; physical function: -0.15, 95% CI = -0.22 to -0.08 vs -0.12, 95% CI = -0.18 to -0.06). Psychomotor speed and working memory, assessed using the TMT, were only impaired in the presence of high microvascular burden. Of the 11 vascular abnormalities considered, white matter hyperintensity, cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate, large brain infarct, and ankle-arm index were independently associated with cognitive and physical function. CONCLUSION: Microvascular and macrovascular abnormalities assessed using noninvasive tests of the brain, kidney, and peripheral artery were independently associated with poor cognitive and physical function in older adults. Future research should evaluate the usefulness of these tests in prognostication.
Authors: A B Newman; J S Gottdiener; M A Mcburnie; C H Hirsch; W J Kop; R Tracy; J D Walston; L P Fried Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L D Hubbard; R J Brothers; W N King; L X Clegg; R Klein; L S Cooper; A R Sharrett; M D Davis; J Cai Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Marco Inzitari; Alice M Arnold; Kushang V Patel; Laina D Mercer; Arun Karlamangla; Jingzhong Ding; Bruce M Psaty; Jeff D Williamson; Lewis H Kuller; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 6.053
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: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ethan Balk; Annamaria T Kausz; Adeera Levin; Michael W Steffes; Ronald J Hogg; Ronald D Perrone; Joseph Lau; Garabed Eknoyan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: T Y Wong; L D Hubbard; R Klein; E K Marino; R Kronmal; A R Sharrett; D S Siscovick; G Burke; J M Tielsch Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Anne B Newman; Alice M Arnold; Barbara L Naydeck; Linda P Fried; Gregory L Burke; Paul Enright; John Gottdiener; Calvin Hirsch; Daniel O'Leary; Russell Tracy Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-10-27
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Francine Grodstein; Anne B Newman; Paulo H M Chaves; Michelle C Odden; Ronald Klein; Mark J Sarnak; Kushang V Patel; Lewis A Lipsitz Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-05-26 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Patrick J Smith; James A Blumenthal; Alan L Hinderliter; Lana L Watkins; Benson M Hoffman; Andrew Sherwood Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Chau Vu; Adam Bush; Soyoung Choi; Matthew Borzage; Xin Miao; Aart J Nederveen; Thomas D Coates; John C Wood Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 13.265
Authors: Cameron D Owens; Peter Mukli; Tamas Csipo; Agnes Lipecz; Federico Silva-Palacios; Tarun W Dasari; Stefano Tarantini; Andrew W Gardner; Polly S Montgomery; Shari R Waldstein; J Mikhail Kellawan; Adam Nyul-Toth; Priya Balasubramanian; Peter Sotonyi; Anna Csiszar; Zoltan Ungvari; Andriy Yabluchanskiy Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 5.125
Authors: Leen J Luyten; Yinthe Dockx; Narjes Madhloum; Hanne Sleurs; Nele Gerrits; Bram G Janssen; Kristof Y Neven; Michelle Plusquin; Eline B Provost; Patrick De Boever; Tim S Nawrot Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Petra Bůžková; Joshua I Barzilay; Howard A Fink; John A Robbins; Jane A Cauley; Joachim H Ix; Kenneth J Mukamal Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2019-03-21