Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Publication year range
1.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord ; 23(1): 498, 2023 10 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37817062

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is expected to rise due to increased survivorship and life expectancy of patients with acute heart conditions. Patients with HF and other multiple comorbid conditions are likely to have poor health outcomes. This study aimed to assimilate the current body of knowledge and to provide the pooled effect of HF patients' comorbid conditions on health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between comorbid conditions and the health outcomes of HF were included. The pooled effect sizes of comorbidity on the identified health outcomes were calculated using a random effects model, and the heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies were included in this review, and a meta-analysis was performed using the results of 39 studies. In the pooled analysis, the presence of a comorbid condition showed a significant pooled effect size in relation to the prognostic health outcomes: all-cause mortality (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.18, 1.45), all-cause readmission (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09, 1.23), HF-related readmission (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.05, 1.23), and non-HF-related readmission (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.07, 1.27). Also, comorbidity was significantly associated with health-related quality of life and self-care confidence. Furthermore, we identified a total of 32 comorbid conditions from included studies. From these, 16 individual conditions were included in the meta-analyses, and we identified 10 comorbid conditions to have negative effects on overall prognostic outcomes: DM (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11, 1.22), COPD (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.23, 1.39), CKD (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.14, 1.23, stroke (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17, 1.31), IHD (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11, 1.23), anemia (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14, 1.78), cancer (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04, 1.32), atrial fibrillation (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01, 1.54), dementia (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03, 1.36) and depression (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04, 1.31). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid conditions have significantly negative pooled effects on HF patient health outcomes, especially in regard to the prognostic health outcomes. Clinicians should carefully identify and manage these conditions when implementing HF interventions to improve prognostic outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Comorbilidad , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Fibrilación Atrial/epidemiología , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud
2.
J Cardiovasc Nurs ; 2023 Oct 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37787712

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive patients with high-risk comorbidities require medications for each condition, leading to greater burden. The number of chronic conditions can affect patients' concurrent medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the characteristics of groups based on their concurrent medication adherence and investigate the association between the number of high-risk comorbidities and concurrent medication adherence for patients with hypertension and high-risk comorbidities. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was performed with the 2018 Korea Health Panel Survey, including 2230 patients with hypertension and at least 1 high-risk comorbidity who were prescribed medications for at least 2 conditions. Using medication adherence for each condition, we identified 3 concurrent medication adherence groups: adherent, suboptimal, and nonadherent groups. Multinominal logistic regression was used to determine the association between the number of high-risk comorbidities and the concurrent medication adherence groups. RESULTS: Adherent, suboptimal, and nonadherent groups included 85%, 11%, and 4% of the patients, respectively. Whereas having more high-risk comorbidities was associated with belonging to the suboptimal group compared with the adherent group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), having fewer high-risk comorbidities was associated with belonging to the nonadherent group compared with the adherent group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 3 groups based on their concurrent medication adherence. Our results indicated that the relationship of the number of high-risk comorbidities with the concurrent medication adherence group was inconsistent.

3.
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs ; 21(7): 687-693, 2022 10 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35018427

RESUMEN

AIMS: It is recommended that patients and clinicians discuss end-of-life deactivation of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prior to device implantation and throughout the illness trajectory to facilitate shared decision-making. However, such discussions rarely occur, and little is known about patients' openness to this discussion. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with patients' openness to discussing end-of-life ICD deactivation with clinicians. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cross-sectional study recruited 293 patients with an ICD from outpatient clinics in the USA, Australia, and South Korea. Patients were classified into an open or resistant group based on their desire to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore factors related to patients' openness to this discussion.About half of the participants (57.7%) were open to discussing such issues with their clinicians. Factors related to patients' openness to discussing device deactivation at end of life were living with someone, not having severe comorbid conditions (cancer and/or chronic kidney disease), greater ICD knowledge, and more experience discussing end-of-life issues with clinicians (odds ratio: 0.479, 0.382, 1.172, 1.332, respectively). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of the ICD recipients were reluctant to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Unmodifiable factors were their living arrangement and severe comorbidity. ICD knowledge and prior experience discussing end-of-life issues were potentially modifiable factors in the future. These factors should be addressed when assessing patients' readiness for a shared discussion about device deactivation at end of life.


Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Cuidado Terminal , Estudios Transversales , Muerte , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda