Mahsa Shokouhi1,2, Deqiang Qiu1,3, Ayman Samman Tahhan4,5, Arshed A Quyyumi4,5, Ihab Hajjar1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 4. Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute, School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports on the relative importance of the diastolic and systolic blood pressures (DBP and SBP) in age-related cognitive decline are mixed. Investigating the relation between DBP/SBP and functional and structural brain changes could elucidate which of the 2 measures is more critically important for brain function and, consequently, cognitive impairment. METHODS: We investigated the association of SBP and DBP with cortical volume, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and white matter lesions (WML), in nondemented older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI; N = 265, 185 MCI, mean age = 64 years). Brachial blood pressure was measured twice while seated, and the average of the 2 measures was used. Cortical volume, gray matter (GM) CBF, and WML were estimated using T1-weighted imaging, arterial spin labeling, and fluid attenuation inversion recovery, respectively. RESULTS: Reduced cortical volume was associated with elevated DBP (β= -0.18, P = 0.034) but not with SBP (β = -0.10, P = 0.206). GM CBF was associated with DBP (β = -0.13, P = 0.048) but not with SBP (β = -0.07, P = 0.275). Likewise, CBF within brain regions where MCI patients showed hypoperfusion were only associated with DBP (DBP: β = -0.17, P = 0.005; SBP: β = -0.09, P = 0.120). WML volume was associated with both DBP (β = 0.20, P = 0.005) and SBP (β = 0.30, P < 0.001). For all measures, there was no interaction between DBP/SBP and cognitive status, indicating that these associations were independent of the cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: Independently of the cognitive status, DBP is more critically important for GM volume and perfusion, whereas WML is associated with both blood pressures, likely reflecting long-term effect of hypertension and autoregulation dysfunction.
BACKGROUND: Reports on the relative importance of the diastolic and systolic blood pressures (DBP and SBP) in age-related cognitive decline are mixed. Investigating the relation between DBP/SBP and functional and structural brain changes could elucidate which of the 2 measures is more critically important for brain function and, consequently, cognitive impairment. METHODS: We investigated the association of SBP and DBP with cortical volume, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and white matter lesions (WML), in nondemented older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI; N = 265, 185 MCI, mean age = 64 years). Brachial blood pressure was measured twice while seated, and the average of the 2 measures was used. Cortical volume, gray matter (GM) CBF, and WML were estimated using T1-weighted imaging, arterial spin labeling, and fluid attenuation inversion recovery, respectively. RESULTS: Reduced cortical volume was associated with elevated DBP (β= -0.18, P = 0.034) but not with SBP (β = -0.10, P = 0.206). GM CBF was associated with DBP (β = -0.13, P = 0.048) but not with SBP (β = -0.07, P = 0.275). Likewise, CBF within brain regions where MCI patients showed hypoperfusion were only associated with DBP (DBP: β = -0.17, P = 0.005; SBP: β = -0.09, P = 0.120). WML volume was associated with both DBP (β = 0.20, P = 0.005) and SBP (β = 0.30, P < 0.001). For all measures, there was no interaction between DBP/SBP and cognitive status, indicating that these associations were independent of the cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: Independently of the cognitive status, DBP is more critically important for GM volume and perfusion, whereas WML is associated with both blood pressures, likely reflecting long-term effect of hypertension and autoregulation dysfunction.
Authors: Majon Muller; Yolanda van der Graaf; Frank L Visseren; Willem P Th M Mali; Mirjam I Geerlings Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: John W McEvoy; Yuan Chen; Andreea Rawlings; Ron C Hoogeveen; Christie M Ballantyne; Roger S Blumenthal; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Linda L Chao; Shannon T Buckley; John Kornak; Norbert Schuff; Catherine Madison; Kristine Yaffe; Bruce L Miller; Joel H Kramer; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2010 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Alida A Gouw; Alexandra Seewann; Wiesje M van der Flier; Frederik Barkhof; Annemieke M Rozemuller; Philip Scheltens; Jeroen J G Geurts Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2010-10-09 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; John E Hall; Lawrence J Appel; Bonita E Falkner; John Graves; Martha N Hill; Daniel W Jones; Theodore Kurtz; Sheldon G Sheps; Edward J Roccella Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frank A Provenzano; Jordan Muraskin; Giuseppe Tosto; Atul Narkhede; Ben T Wasserman; Erica Y Griffith; Vanessa A Guzman; Irene B Meier; Molly E Zimmerman; Adam M Brickman Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: G Tsivgoulis; A V Alexandrov; V G Wadley; F W Unverzagt; R C P Go; C S Moy; B Kissela; G Howard Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Michelle R Caunca; Marialaura Simonetto; Ying Kuen Cheung; Noam Alperin; Sang H Lee; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Tatjana Rundek; Clinton B Wright Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 7.914