SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association between the blood pressure variability and cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease.

Brain Behav · 2023-11-15

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3319PMID: 37969048

Open accessbrief-report; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectivesHigh visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) was found to be associated with cognitive decline in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the impact of visit-to-visit BPV on cognition in patients with early-stage Parkinson's disease (PD).DesignThis is a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort.Setting and participantsA total of 297 patients with early-stage PD (103 mild cognitive impairments [PD-MCI] and 194 normal cognitions [PD-NC] at baseline) were included from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative study.MethodsVariation independent of mean (VIM) of the first year was used as the indicator of BPV. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess global cognition. Patients were divided into PD-MCI and PD-NC according to the MoCA score at baseline. Longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid (Aβ-42, Aβ, α-synuclein, neurofilament light protein, tau phosphorylated at the threonine 181 position, total tau, glial fibrillary acidic protein) and serum (neurofilament light protein) biomarkers were assessed. The Bayesian linear growth model was used to evaluate the relationship between baseline BPV and the rate of change in cognition and biomarkers.ResultsHigher systolic VIM of the first year was related to a greater rate of decline in MoCA score in the following years in PD-MCI (β = -.15 [95% CI -.29, -.01]). No association was found between BPV and biomarkers.Conclusion and implicationsHigher systolic VIM predicted a steeper decline in cognitive tests in PD-MCI independently from the mean value of blood pressure, orthostatic hypotension, and supine hypertension.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.