ABSTRACT Objective: To examine the associations between individual chronic diseases and multidimensional frailty comprising physical, psychological, and social frailty. Methods: Dutch individuals (N = 47,768) age ≥ 65 years completed a general health questionnaire sent by the Public Health Services (response rate of 58.5 %), including data concerning self-reported chronic diseases, multidimensional frailty, and sociodemographic characteristics. Multidimensional frailty was assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). Total frailty and each frailty domain were regressed onto background characteristics and the six most prevalent chronic diseases: diabetes mellitus, cancer, hypertension, arthrosis, urinary incontinence, and severe back disorder. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of combinations of these six diseases. Results: The six chronic diseases had medium and strong associations with total ((f2 = 0.122) and physical frailty (f2 = 0.170), respectively, and weak associations with psychological (f2 = 0.023) and social frailty (f2 = 0.008). The effects of the six diseases on the frailty variables differed strongly across diseases, with urinary incontinence and severe back disorder impairing frailty most. No synergetic effects were found; the effects of a disease on frailty did not get noteworthy stronger in the presence of another disease. Conclusions: Chronic diseases, in particular urinary incontinence and severe back disorder, were associated with frailty. We thus recommend assigning different weights to individual chronic diseases in a measure of multimorbidity that aims to examine effects of multimorbidity on multidimensional frailty. Because there were no synergetic effects of chronic diseases, the measure does not need to include interactions between diseases.
DOCUMENT
A consensus document from the Study Group of Sports Cardiology of the Working Group of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology and the Working Group of Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology
DOCUMENT
Background A high sedentary time is associated with increased mortality risk. Previous studies indicate that replacement of sedentary time with light- and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity attenuates the risk for adverse outcomes and improves cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with cardiovascular disease are more sedentary compared to the general population, while daily time spent sedentary remains high following contemporary cardiac rehabilitation programmes. This clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of a sedentary behaviour intervention as a personalised secondary prevention strategy (SIT LESS) on changes in sedentary time among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Patients were randomised to usual care (n = 104) or SIT LESS (n = 108). Both groups received a comprehensive 12-week centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programme with face-to-face consultations and supervised exercise sessions, whereas SIT LESS participants additionally received a 12-week, nurse-delivered, hybrid behaviour change intervention in combination with a pocket-worn activity tracker connected to a smartphone application to continuously monitor sedentary time. Primary outcome was the change in device-based sedentary time between pre- to post-rehabilitation. Changes in sedentary time characteristics (prevalence of prolonged sedentary bouts and proportion of patients with sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day); time spent in light-intensity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; step count; quality of life; competencies for self-management; and cardiovascular risk score were assessed as secondary outcomes. Results Patients (77% male) were 63 ± 10 years and primarily diagnosed with myocardial infarction (78%). Sedentary time decreased in SIT LESS (− 1.6 [− 2.1 to − 1.1] hours/day) and controls (− 1.2 [ ─1.7 to − 0.8]), but between group differences did not reach statistical significance (─0.4 [─1.0 to 0.3]) hours/day). The post-rehabilitation proportion of patients with a sedentary time above the upper limit of normal (≥ 9.5 h/day) was significantly lower in SIT LESS versus controls (48% versus 72%, baseline-adjusted odds-ratio 0.4 (0.2–0.8)). No differences were observed in the other predefined secondary outcomes. Conclusions Among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation, SIT LESS did not induce significantly greater reductions in sedentary time compared to controls, but delivery was feasible and a reduced odds of a sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day was observed.
MULTIFILE
