Intensive Blood Pressure Management Preserves Functional Connectivity in Patients with Hypertension from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Randomized Trial

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Mozaffarian D,
   2. Benjamin EJ,
   3. Go AS, et al

   ; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2016 Update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016;133:e38–360 doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350 pmid:26673558

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Law MR,
   2. Morris JK,
   3. Wald NJ

   . Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ 2009;338:b1665 doi:10.1136/bmj.b1665 pmid:19454737

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Wright JT,
   2. Williamson JD,
   3. Whelton PK

   ; et al; SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2103–16 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1511939 pmid:26551272

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Williamson JD,
   2. Pajewski NM,
   3. Auchus AP, et al

   ; SPRINT MIND Investigators for the SPRINT Research Group. Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Probable Dementia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:553–61 doi:10.1001/jama.2018.21442 pmid:30688979

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Nasrallah IM,
   2. Pajewski NM,
   3. Auchus AP, et al

   ; SPRINT MIND Investigators for the SPRINT Research Group, Association of intensive vs standard blood pressure control with cerebral white matter lesions. JAMA 2019;322:524–34 doi:10.1001/jama.2019.10551 pmid:31408137

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Iadecola C,
   2. Yaffe K,
   3. Biller J, et al

   ; American Heart Association Council on Hypertension; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Stroke Council. Impact of hypertension on cognitive function: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension 2016;68:e67–94 doi:10.1161/HYP.0000000000000053 pmid:27977393

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Shah C,
   2. Srinivasan D,
   3. Erus G, et al

   . Changes in brain functional connectivity and cognition related to white matter lesion burden in hypertensive patients from SPRINT. Neuroradiology 2021;63:913–24 doi:10.1007/s00234-020-02614-6 pmid:33404789

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Tamura MK,
   2. Pajewski NM,
   3. Bryan RN, et al

   ; SPRINT Study Research Group. Chronic kidney disease, cerebral blood flow, and white matter volume in hypertensive adults. Neurology 2016;86:1208–16 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000002527 pmid:26920359

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Freedman BI,
   2. Gadegbeku CA,
   3. Bryan RN, et al

   . APOL1 renal-risk variants associate with reduced cerebral white matter lesion volume and increased gray matter volume. Kidney Int 2016;90:440–49 doi:10.1016/j.kint.2016.04.027 pmid:27342958

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Doshi J,
    2. Erus G,
    3. Ou Y, et al

    . Multi-atlas skull-stripping. Acad Radiol 2013;20:1566–76 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.010 pmid:24200484

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Doshi J,
    2. Erus G,
    3. Ou Y, et al

    ; Alzheimer's Neuroimaging Initiative. MUSE: MUlti-atlas region Segmentation utilizing Ensembles of registration algorithms and parameters, and locally optimal atlas selection. Neuroimage 2016;127:186–95 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.073 pmid:26679328

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Satterthwaite TD,
    2. Wolf DH,
    3. Loughead J, et al

    . Impact of in-scanner head motion on multiple measures of functional connectivity: relevance for studies of neurodevelopment in youth. Neuroimage 2012;60:623–32 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.063 pmid:22233733

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Power JD,
    2. Mitra A,
    3. Laumann TO, et al

    . Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI. Neuroimage 2014;84:320–41 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.048 pmid:23994314

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Ray KL,
    2. McKay DR,
    3. Fox PM, et al

    . ICA model order selection of task co-activation networks. Front Neurosci 2013;7:237 doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00237 pmid:24339802

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Beckmann CF,
    2. Smith SM

    . Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004;23:137–52 doi:10.1109/TMI.2003.822821 pmid:14964560

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Du Y,
    2. Fan Y

    . Group information guided ICA for fMRI data analysis. Neuroimage 2013;69:157–97 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.008 pmid:23194820

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Du Y,
    2. Allen EA,
    3. He H, et al

    . Artifact removal in the context of group ICA: a comparison of single-subject and group approaches. Hum Brain Mapp 2016;37:1005–25 doi:10.1002/hbm.23086 pmid:26859308

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Wisner KM,
    2. Patzelt EH,
    3. Lim KO, et al

    . An intrinsic connectivity network approach to insula-derived dysfunctions among cocaine users. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2013;39:403–13 doi:10.3109/00952990.2013.848211 pmid:24200210

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Kannurpatti SS,
    2. Motes MA,
    3. Biswal BB, et al

    . Assessment of unconstrained cerebrovascular reactivity marker for large age-range FMRI studies. PLoS One 2014;9:e88751 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088751 pmid:24551151

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Toga AW

    1. Menon V

    . Salience Network. In: Toga AW, ed. Brain Mapping: An Encyclopedic Reference. 2nd ed. Academic Press: Elsevier; 2015:597–611
21. 21.↵
    1. Jaeger J

    . Digit symbol substitution test. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2018;38:513–19 doi:10.1097/JCP.0000000000000941 pmid:30124583

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Rapp SR,
    2. Gausoin SA,
    3. Sachs BC, et al

    ; SPRINT Research Group. Effects of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on domain-specific cognitive function: a substudy of the SPRINT randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2020;19:899–907 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30319-7 pmid:33098800

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Forte G,
    2. Pascalis VD,
    3. Favieri F, et al

    . Effects of blood pressure on cognitive performance: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2019;9:34 doi:10.3390/jcm9010034 pmid:31877865

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Hafkemeijer A,
    2. van der Grond J,
    3. Rombouts SA

    . Imaging the default mode network in aging and dementia. Biochim Biophys Acta 2012;1822:431–41 doi:10.1016/j.bbadis.2011.07.008 pmid:21807094

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Son SJ,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Lee E, et al

    . Effect of hypertension on the resting-state functional connectivity in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;60:210–16 doi:10.1016/j.archger.2014.09.012 pmid:25307953

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Peters R,
    2. Warwick J,
    3. Anstey KJ, et al

    . Blood pressure and dementia: what the SPRINT-MIND trial adds and what we still need to know. Neurology 2019;92:1017–18 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007543 pmid:31019101

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Gorelick PB,
    2. Sorond F

    . Cognitive function in SPRINT: where do we go next? Lancet Neurol 2020;19:880–81 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30356-2 pmid:33098785

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Hajjar I,
    2. Okafor M,
    3. McDaniel D, et al

    . Effects of Candesartan vs Lisinopril on Neurocognitive Function in Older Adults with Executive Mild Cognitive Impairment: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2012252 doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12252 pmid:32761160

    CrossRefPubMed