Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome: Could It Be Defined Through Increased Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test Time, Rather Than Slow Walking Speed?

Details

Ressource 1Download: 30766485_BIB_FB7945965CD0.pdf (271.05 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY 4.0
Serval ID
serval:BIB_FB7945965CD0
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome: Could It Be Defined Through Increased Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test Time, Rather Than Slow Walking Speed?
Journal
Frontiers in aging neuroscience
Author(s)
Sekhon H., Launay C.P., Chabot J., Allali G., Beauchet O.
ISSN
1663-4365 (Print)
ISSN-L
1663-4365
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
10
Pages
434
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
Background: Slow walking speed, time to perform the five-times-sit-to-stand (FTSS) test and motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR; defined as slow gait speed combined with subjective cognitive complaint) have been separately used to screen older individuals at risk of cognitive decline. This study seeks to (1) compare the characteristics of older individuals with MCR, as defined through slow walking speed and/or increased FTSS time; and (2) examine the relationship between MCR and its motor components as well as amnestic (a-MCI) and non-amnestic (na-MCI) Mild Cognitive Impairment. Methods: A total of 633, individuals free of dementia, were selected from the cross-sectional "Gait and Alzheimer Interactions Tracking" study. Slow gait speed and increased FTSS time were used as criteria for the definition of MCR. Participants were separated into five groups, according to MCR status: MCR as defined by (1) slow gait speed exclusively (MCRs); (2) increased FTSS time exclusively (MCRf); (3) slow gait speed and increased FTSS time (MCRsaf); (4) MCR; irrespective of the mobility test used (MCRsof); and (5) the absence of MCR. Cognitive status (i.e., a-MCI, na-MCI, cognitively healthy) was also determined. Results: The prevalence of MCRs was higher, when compared to the prevalence of MCRf (12.0% versus 6.2% with P ≤ 0.001). There existed infrequent overlap (2.4%) between individuals exhibiting MCRs and MCRf, and frequent overlap between individuals exhibiting MCRs and na-MCI (up to 50%). a-MCI and na-MCI were negatively [odd ratios (OR) ≤ 0.17 with P ≤ 0.019] and positively (OR ≥ 2.41 with P ≤ 0.019) related to MCRs, respectively. Conclusion: Individuals with MCRf are distinct from those with MCRs. MCRf status does not relate to MCI status in the same way that MCRs does. MCRs is related negatively to a-MCI and positively to na-MCI. These results suggest that FTTS cannot be used to define MCR when the goal is to predict the risk of cognitive decline, such as future dementia.
Keywords
Ageing, Cognitive Neuroscience, cognition, epidemiology, motricity, older inpatients, screening
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
15/02/2019 18:57
Last modification date
20/08/2019 17:26
Usage data