| Literature DB >> 31248108 |
Elisabeta Ioana Hiriscau1,2, Constantin Bodolea3,4.
Abstract
An increased interest regarding the impact of frailty on the prognosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been observed in the last decade. Frailty is a syndrome characterized by a reduced biological reserve that increases the vulnerability of an individual in relation to stressors. Among the patients with CVD, a higher incidence of frailty has been reported in those with heart failure (HF). Regardless of its conceptualizations, frailty is generally associated with negative outcomes in HF and an increased risk of mortality. Psychological factors, such as depression and anxiety, increase the risk of negative outcomes on the cardiac function and mortality. Depression and anxiety are found to be common factors impacting the heart disease and quality of life (QoL) in patients with HF. Depression is considered an independent risk factor of cardiac-related incidents and death, and a strong predictor of rehospitalization. Anxiety seems to be an adequate predictor only in conjunction with depression. The relationship between psychological factors (depression and anxiety) and frailty in HF has hardly been documented. The aim of this paper is to review the reported data from relevant studies regarding the impact of depression and anxiety, and their effects on clinical outcomes and prognosis in frail patients with HF.Entities:
Keywords: anxiety; depression; frailty; heart failure; psychological factors
Year: 2019 PMID: 31248108 PMCID: PMC6631213 DOI: 10.3390/diseases7020045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diseases ISSN: 2079-9721
Figure 1Selection of the publications.
Publications included in the review.
| Studies | Reference Type | Location | Sample | Mean Age | Characteristics of Population | Assessment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frailty | Depression and Anxiety | ||||||
| Sokoreli | Ongoing prospective observational study | UK | 779 participants hospitalized for HF | 75 (67–82) | treatment with loop diuretics and LVEF ≤ 40 | 1. questions about having trouble with bathing and dressing 2. TUG test < 10 s normal > 20 s abnormal | HADS questionnaire |
| Denfeld | Prospective cross-sectional study | USA | 49 participants | 57.4 ± 9.7 | NYHA III or IV, non-ischemic HF | 1. Shrinking (self-report) 2. Weakness (5-repeat chair stands) | Depression: |
| Uchmanowicz 2015 | Single-centre observational cohort | Poland | 100 participants | non-frail, 62.3 ± 6.2 years; frail, 67.9 ± 10.7 years | > 60 years, with a diagnosis of HF, enrolled from clinic |
TFI scale (Polish version) with 15-self-reported questions regarding:
| HADS questionnaire |
BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; LVEF, Left ventricle ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; PHQ9, Patient Health Questionnaire; TFI, Tilburg Frailty Indicator; and TUG, ‘timed up and go’.
Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, NHLBI (National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute), NIH (National Institute of Health).
| Studies | Sokorelli, 2018 | Denfeld, 2017 | Uchmanowicz, 2015 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Yes | No | Other (CD, NR, NA) * | Yes | No | Other (CD, NR, NA) * | Yes | No | Other (CD, NR, NA) * |
| 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | x | small sample | small sample, recruited from a single center, 89% of the patients were frail | ||||||
| 3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | NR | NR | NR | ||||||
| 4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? | NA | NA | NA | ||||||
| 11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | x | x | x | ||||||
| 12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? | NA | NA | NA | ||||||
| 13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? | x | NA | NA | ||||||
| 14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? | x | x | x | ||||||
* CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.