4.1 Article

Drugs with potential cardiac adverse effects: Retrospective study in a large cohort of parkinsonian patients

期刊

REVUE NEUROLOGIQUE
卷 172, 期 4-5, 页码 318-323

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurol.2015.11.007

关键词

Cardiovascular; Adverse effect; Parkinson's disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction/Objective. - Drugs with potential cardiac adverse effects are commonly prescribed in Parkinson's disease (PD). To describe demographic and clinical characteristics in a group of PD patients with cardiac events and to evaluate risk factors. Patients and methods. - We sampled 506 consecutive PD patients (211 women/295 men), median age 68.3 +/- 10.6 years (range 36-95) and median disease duration 11.2 +/- 6.5 years (range 1-49). Medications with potential cardiac effects, i.e. QT prolongation (citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, sertraline, domperidone, amantadine, solifenacin), ventricular arrhythmia (rivastigmine, clozapine, midodrine, sildenafil, tadalafil) and ischemic heart disease (rasagiline, entacapone, tadalafil) were recorded. Demographic and clinical data were collected prospectively; cardiac events were obtained retrospectively. Results. - Twenty-four patients (4.7%) (9 women/15 men) presented a cardiac event. Fifteen (62.5%) patients had dysautonomia, 4 (16.6%) a history of heart disease and 8 (33.3%) were taking one or more drugs with a definite potential cardiac adverse effect. Age (75.9 +/- 6.6 yr vs. 67.8 +/- 11 yr), disease duration (14.7 +/- 3.6 yr vs. 11 +/- 6.5 yr), dysautonomia (62.5% vs. 24.5%) and dementia associated with PD (37.5% vs. 14.6%) were significantly higher in the group with cardiac events (P < 0.05). Cofactors increasing the risk for cardiovascular events were age and dysautonomia. Discussion/Conclusion. - Our results indicate that the neurodegenerative process in Parkinson's disease is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular complications. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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