ABSTRACT
Background: There is a strong association between hypertension and cerebrovascular diseases, but most of the mechanistic bases to justify this correlation remains misunderstood. Objective: To evaluate intracranial pressure waveform in long-term essential hypertensive patients with a non-invasive device, brain4care (b4c). Methods: Cross-sectional study in patients with hypertension. Office blood pressure was measured with an automatic oscillometric device. Intracranial pressure evaluation was acquired through a strain sensor that could detect and monitor nanometric skull bone displacements for each cardiac cycle. Under normal physiological conditions, P1 is greater than P2, and the normal P2/P1 ratio is <1. Time to peak (TTP) is the measurement in seconds of the beginning of waveform inscription until P1 and normal values are <0.20â s. The cut-off points ≥1.2 and ≥0.25â s were used to define intracranial hypertension (ICHT). Results: 391 consecutive patients were evaluated (75% female, mean age 64.3 ± 12.0 years). Mean value of P2/P1 ratio was 1.18 ± 0.25 and TTP 0.18 ± 0.63â s The obtained P2/P1 ratios were divided in three categories according to results of previous studies of normalcy (<1.0), intracranial compliance disturbance (1.0-1.19) and ICHT (≥1.2). Normal intracranial pressure was observed in 21.7% of patients, intracranial compliance disturbance in 32.7% and intracranial hypertension in 45.6%. Females showed a higher prevalence of ICHT (50.3%). Conclusion: The prevalence of 45.6% intra-cranial hypertension in patients with long-term hypertension, particularly in women, and in those over 65 years old, emphasizes the importance of evaluate intracranial pressure behaviour in these patients and raise a question concerning the real ability of cerebral autoregulation and vascular barriers to protect the brain.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT This work aimed to compare performances on the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and its subtasks between faller and non-faller older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). A prospective study was conducted, with 38 older adults with MCI and 37 with mild AD. Participants underwent an assessment at baseline (the TUG and its subtasks using the Qualisys ProReflex system) and the monitoring of falls at the six-month follow up. After six months, 52.6% participants with MCI and 51.3% with AD fell. In accordance with specific subtasks, total performance on the TUG distinguished fallers from non-fallers with AD, fallers from non-fallers with MCI and non-fallers with MCI from non-fallers with AD. Although no other difference was found in total performances, non-fallers with MCI and fallers with AD differed on the walking forward, turn and turn-to-sit subtasks; and fallers with MCI and non-fallers with AD differed on the turn-to-sit subtask.
RESUMO O objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar o desempenho do Timed up and go test (TUG) e suas subtarefas entre idosos caidores e não caidores com comprometimento cognitivo leve (CCL) e doença de Alzheimer (DA) leve. Um estudo prospectivo foi conduzido, com 38 idosos com CCL e 37 com DA leve. Foi realizada uma avaliação inicial (TUG e subtarefas por meio do sistema Qualisys Pro Reflex) e um monitoramento de quedas por 6 meses. Após 6 meses, 52.6% pessoas com CCL e 51.3% com DA caíram. Em concordância com subtarefas específicas, a performance total do TUG distinguiu caidores de não caidores com DA, caidores de não caidores com CCL e não caidores com CCL de não caidores com DA. Embora nenhuma outra diferença foi encontrada na performance total do TUG, não caidores com CCL e caidores com DA apresentaram diferenças nas performances das subtarefas marcha ida, retornar e virar-se para sentar; e caidores com CCL e não caidores com DA diferiram na subtarefa virar-se para sentar.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Accidental Falls/statistics & numerical data , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Postural Balance/physiology , Exercise Test/methods , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Prospective Studies , Alzheimer Disease/complications , Alzheimer Disease/physiopathology , Cognitive Dysfunction/complications , Cognitive Dysfunction/physiopathologyABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Language assessment seems to be an effective tool to differentiate healthy and cognitively impaired aging groups. This article discusses the impact of educational level on a naming task, on a verbal learning with semantic cues task and on the MMSE in healthy aging adults at three educational levels (very low, low and high) as well as comparing two clinical groups of very low (0-3 years) and low education (4-7 years) patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with healthy controls. The participants comprised 101 healthy controls, 17 patients with MCI and 19 with AD. Comparisons between the healthy groups showed an education effect on the MMSE, but not on naming and verbal learning. However, the clinical groups were differentiated in both the naming and verbal learning assessment. The results support the assumption that the verbal learning with semantic cues task is a valid tool to diagnose MCI and AD patients, with no influence from education.
RESUMO A linguagem tem se mostrado uma ferramenta eficiente para diferenciar grupos de idosos saudáveis dos com deficiências cognitivas. O artigo objetiva discutir o impacto do nível educacional na nomeação, na aprendizagem verbal (AV) com pistas semânticas e no MEEM no envelhecimento saudável em três níveis de escolaridade (muito baixa: 0-3 anos, baixa: 4-7 anos e alta: >8 anos) e em dois grupos clínicos de escolaridade muito baixa e baixa (Doença de Alzheimer - DA - e Comprometimento Cognitivo Leve - CCL), comparados a controles saudáveis. Participaram 101 controles, 17 CCL e 19 DA. Comparações entre grupos saudáveis demonstraram um efeito da escolaridade no MEEM, mas não nas tarefas de nomeação e de AV. Considerando as comparações entre os grupos clínicos, tanto a nomeação quanto a AV os diferenciaram. Os resultados corroboram a pressuposição de que a tarefa de AV com pistas semânticas é válida para diagnosticar CCL e DA, não sendo influenciada pela escolaridade.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Verbal Learning/physiology , Aging/physiology , Educational Status , Alzheimer Disease/physiopathology , Cognitive Dysfunction/physiopathology , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Reference Values , Semantics , Task Performance and Analysis , Brazil , Aging/psychology , Case-Control Studies , Analysis of Variance , Alzheimer Disease/psychology , Memory, Episodic , Cognitive Dysfunction/psychology , Healthy Aging/physiology , Healthy Aging/psychology , Language Tests , Neuropsychological TestsABSTRACT
La enfermedad de Parkinson es la segunda enfermedad degenerativa más común en el mundo después del Alzheimer. En Colombia hay una prevalencia estimada de 4,7 (IC95%: 2,2 a 8,9) por 1,000 habitantes y se detecta con mayor frecuencia en personas mayores de 60 años, lo que representa un alto costo para las familias y para el sistema de salud. Actualmente se utilizan para el diagnóstico los criterios del Banco de Cerebros del Reino Unido, sin embargo, hay otros criterios que pueden ser útiles para proyectos de investigación. Se ha demostrado que hay múltiples factores de riesgo y de progresión asociados con la enfermedad, y que deben tenerse en cuenta durante la evaluación clínica, la cual debería siempre realizarse en conjunto con las escalas de seguimiento.
Parkinson's disease is the second most common degenerative disease in the world after Alzheimer's disease. Colombia has an estimated prevalence of 470 (95% CI 2.2 to 8.9) per 1,000 people, more frequently found in people over 60 years, which represents a high financial burden imposed on families and health care system. The criteria currently used for the diagnostic are those compiled in the Brain Bank of the UK; however, other criteria may be useful for research. There are multiple risk and progression factors which have been proven to have an association with parkinson's disease, and that should be considered during clinical assessment, which should always be carried out additionally with follow scales.