4.5 Review

Arterial stiffness and frailty - A systematic review and metaanalysis

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2021.111480

关键词

Arterial stiffness; Frailty; Metaanalysis; CAVI; PWV

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of published cross-sectional study results suggests a correlation between aortic stiffness and frailty in older subjects, indicating the need for well-designed prospective studies to explore causality.
Frailty and cardiovascular disease share some of the pathophysiologic features. Our objective was to review and metaanalyse the available published evidence on the topic. We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies where pulse wave velocity (PWV) or carotid-ankle vascular index (CAVI) has been linked with frailty in older persons. Of the initial 362 abstracts, after the application of the PRISMA approach, 5 were analysed in detail. We calculated within-study and pooled standardised mean differences of aortic stiffness measures between frail and non-frail (0.62 [0.31-0.92], p < 0.0001, I-2 = 88%), and pre-frail and non-frail (0.32 [0.14-0.51], p = 0.0006, I-2 = 72%) groups. In two studies it was possible to extract directly or calculate based on published data the odds ratios for the concomitant frailty, associated in one case with CAVI greater by 1 m/s and in another with cfPWV >13 m/s, indicating greater probability of concomitant frailty given greater aortic stiffness. Across the studies, the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking tended to increase from non-frail, to pre-frail, and frail groups, presenting a possibility of important confounding, but also a common pathophysiology. In conclusion, the pooled analysis of the published cross-sectional study results indicates a relation between aortic stiffness and frailty in older subjects. However, well designed prospective studies are needed to answer the questions of causality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据