4.7 Article

Cerebrovascular hemodynamics, gait, and falls in an elderly population MOBILIZE Boston Study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 74, 期 20, 页码 1627-1633

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181df0982

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NIA [K23-AG030967, P01-AG004390, R37-AG25037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether alterations in cerebral blood flow regulation are associated with slow gait speed and falls in community-dwelling elderly individuals. Methods: The study sample consisted of 419 individuals from the MOBILIZE Boston Study (MBS) who had transcranial Doppler ultrasound measures of cerebral blood flow velocity. The MBS is a prospective cohort study of a unique set of risk factors for falls in seniors in the Boston area. We measured beat-to-beat blood flow velocity in the middle cerebral artery in response to 1) changes in end-tidal CO(2) (cerebral vasoreactivity) and 2) blood pressure changes during a sit-to-stand protocol (cerebral autoregulation). Gait speed was measured during a 4-meter walk. Falls were tracked by monthly calendars, and demographic and clinical characteristics were assessed at baseline. Results: A multivariate linear regression analysis showed that cerebral vasoreactivity was cross-sectionally related to gait speed (p = 0.039). Individuals in the lowest quintile of vasoreactivity had lower gait speeds as compared to those in the highest quintile (p = 0.047). In a negative binomial regression analysis adjusted for relevant covariates, the relationship between cerebral vasoreactivity and fall rate did not reach significance. However, when comparing individuals in the lowest to highest quintile of cerebral vasoreactivity, those in the lowest quintile had a higher fall rate (p = 0.029). Conclusions: Impaired cerebral blood flow regulation, as measured by cerebral vasoreactivity to CO(2), is associated with slow gait speed and may lead to the development of falls in elderly people. Neurology (R) 2010; 74: 1627-1633

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据