Does high visit-to-visit blood pressure variability increase the risk of incident all-cause dementia or cardiovascular disease in older people?
In older adults, high visit-to-visit blood pressure variability is associated with incident cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline, but not with incident all-cause dementia.
BACKGROUND: High visit-to-visit variability (VVV) in blood pressure (BP) is associated with cerebrovascular lesions on neuroimaging. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to investigate whether VVV is associated with incident all-cause dementia. As a secondary objective, we studied the association of VVV with cognitive decline and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: We included community-dwelling people (age 70-78 year) from the 'Prevention of Dementia by Intensive Vascular Care' (preDIVA) trial with three to five 2-yearly BP measurements during 6-8 years follow-up. VVV was defined using coefficient of variation (CV; SD/mean×100). Cognitive decline was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Incident CVD was defined as myocardial infarction or stroke. We used a Cox proportional hazard regression and mixed-effects model adjusted for sociodemographic factors and cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: In 2,305 participants (aged 74.2±2.5), mean systolic BP over all available visits was 150.1 mmHg (SD 13.6), yielding a CV of 9.0. After 6.4 years (SD 0.8) follow-up, 110 (4.8%) participants developed dementia and 140 (6.1%) CVD. Higher VVV was not associated with increased risk of dementia (hazard ratio HR 1.00 per point CV increase; 95% confidence interval CI 0.96-1.05), although the highest quartile of VVV was associated with stronger decline in MMSE (β -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.01). Higher VVV was associated with incident CVD (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.11). CONCLUSION: In our study among older people, high VVV is not associated with incident all-cause dementia. It is associated with decline in MMSE and incident CVD.
Middelaar et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: