Evidence Hub

Association of Long-Term Blood Pressure Variability with Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy-related Brain Injury and Cognitive Decline

Sveikata L, Zotin MCZ, Schoemaker D, Ma Y, Perosa V, Chokesuwattanaskul A, Charidimou A, Duering M et al.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024

102 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Long-term systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) has been proposed as a novel risk factor for dementia, but the underlying mechanisms are largely unknown. We aimed to investigate the association between long-term blood pressure variability (BPV), brain injury, and cognitive decline in patients with mild cognitive symptoms and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a well-characterized small-vessel disease that causes cognitive decline in older adults.

METHODS: Using a prospective memory clinic cohort, we enrolled 102 participants, of whom 52 with probable CAA. All underwent a 3-tesla research MRI at baseline and annual neuropsychological evaluation over 2 years, for which standardized z-scores for four cognitive domains were calculated. BPV was assessed using a coefficient of variation derived from serial outpatient BP measurements (median 12) over five years. We measured the peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD) as a marker of white matter integrity, and other neuroimaging markers of CAA, including lacunes and cortical cerebral microinfarcts. Using regression models, we evaluated the association of BPV with microstructural brain injury and whether CAA modified this association. We also examined the association of BPV with subsequent cognitive decline.

RESULTS: Systolic BPV was dose-dependently associated with PSMD (estimate=0.22, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.39, p=0.010), independent of age, sex, mean BP, common vascular risk factors, brain atrophy, and CAA…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 102 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free