4.5 Article

Memory loss and decreased executive function are associated with limited functional capacity in patients with heart failure compared to patients with other medical conditions

期刊

HEART & LUNG
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 61-67

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2017.09.005

关键词

Cognitive function; Heart failure; Medical conditions; Functional capacity

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2014R1A1A2055948]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is limited evidence on the degree of cognitive impairment and its association with physical functional capacity among patients with heart failure (HF) in Korea. Objectives: In this study, we compared cognitive impairment between patients with HF and community dwelling participants with non-HF medical conditions (medical participants) and its association with physical functional capacity. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional comparative study and assessed the neuropsychological cognitive status (Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery) and physical functional capacity (Duke Activity Status Index) of patients with HF and medical participants using face-to-face interviews. Results: One hundred and eighteen patients with HF (age, 65.45 +/- 9.38 years; men, 57.6%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 34.93 +/- 8.72%) and 83 medical participants (age, 66.02 +/- 8.28 years; men, 47.0%) were included. Using seventh-percentile medical participant Z-scores as cutoffs, memory and executive function were worse in patients with HF than in medical participants: immediate (35.0% vs. 6.0%) and delayed recall memory (34.5% vs. 8.4%), and executive function (28.6% vs. 6.0%). Independent of age, sex, education, comorbiclity, and HF status, executive function was a significant predictor of physical functional capacity (b = 1.82, p = .021). Conclusions: More patients with HF had impaired memory and executive function, which were associated with their physical functional capacities. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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