Comparison of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and time in target range in predicting risk for cognitive outcomes in the SPRINT trial.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Isabel J Sible, Daniel A Nation
{"title":"Comparison of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and time in target range in predicting risk for cognitive outcomes in the SPRINT trial.","authors":"Isabel J Sible, Daniel A Nation","doi":"10.1177/13872877241303378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and time in target range (TTR) are emerging vascular risk factors for dementia, independent of traditionally targeted mean BP.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], <i>p </i>< 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], <i>p </i>< 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], <i>p </i>= 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], <i>p </i>< 0.001) in the intensive group only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial information: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01206062.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"13872877241303378"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241303378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and time in target range (TTR) are emerging vascular risk factors for dementia, independent of traditionally targeted mean BP.

Objective: Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.

Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.

Results: Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], p < 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], p < 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], p = 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], p < 0.001) in the intensive group only.

Conclusions: Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.

Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01206062.

在 SPRINT 试验中,在预测认知结果风险时,比较就诊时的血压变异性和在目标范围内的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信