4.7 Article

Baseline and Longitudinal Increases in Diastolic Blood Pressure Are Associated With Greater White Matter Hyperintensity Volume The Northern Manhattan Study

期刊

STROKE
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 2639-U437

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.617571

关键词

blood-brain barrier; risk factors; stroke care; white matter disease

资金

  1. Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute, National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke) [R37 NS29993, K02 NS059729]
  2. NIH [R37 NS29993]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Elevated blood pressure (BP) is a risk factor for stroke and dementia, but the effect of BP, and change in BP over time, on white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV) is not fully understood. Few studies have included Hispanics, who are at greater risk of stroke and dementia than non-Hispanic whites. We examined BP in relation to WMHV in a stroke-free cohort. Methods-The Northern Manhattan Study includes 1290 stroke-free participants who had brain MRI. We examined baseline systolic and diastolic (DBP) BP, and changes in BP from baseline to MRI, and WMHV. Results-There were 1281 participants with brain MRI and 2 BP measurements (mean age, 64 years; SD=8; range, 40 to 94 years). Baseline DBP was associated with greater WMHV (P<0.0001) independent of sociodemographic and vascular risk factors. Each 10 mm Hg above the mean baseline DBP (83 +/- 11 mm Hg) was associated with a 1.17% greater WMHV. Over 7 years average follow-up, participants with an increase >5 mm Hg DBP from baseline to MRI had 1.21% greater WMHV relative to those whose BP did not increase (P = 0.02). The association between baseline DBP and WMHV was strongest for blacks compared with Hispanics and whites (interaction P = 0.04). Conclusions-Baseline DBP and longitudinal increases in DBP were independently associated with a greater WMHV, and the association between DBP and WMHV was greatest among blacks. (Stroke. 2011;42:2639-2641.)

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