Abstract: Hypertension is both a health problem and a financial one globally. It affects nearly 30 % of the general population. Elderly people, aged ≥65 years, are a special group of hypertensive patients. In this group, the overall prevalence of the disease reaches 60 %, rising to 70 % in those aged ≥80 years. In the elderly population, isolated systolic hypertension is quite common. High systolic blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, cognitive impairment and kidney disease. Considering the physiological changes resulting from ageing alongside multiple comorbidities, treatment of hypertension in elderly patients poses a significant challenge to treatment teams. Progressive disability with regard to the activities of daily life, more frequent hospitalisations and low quality of life are often seen in elderly patients. There is discussion in the literature regarding frailty syndrome associated with old age. Frailty is understood to involve decreased resistance to stressors, depleted adaptive and physiological reserves of a number of organs, endocrine dysregulation and immune dysfunction. The primary dilemma concerning frailty is whether it should only be defined on the basis of physical factors, or whether psychological and social factors should also be included. Proper nutrition and motor rehabilitation should be prioritised in care for frail patients. The risk of orthostatic hypotension is a significant issue in elderly patients. It results from an autonomic nervous system dysfunction and involves maladjustment of the cardiovascular system to sudden changes in the position of the body. Other significant issues in elderly patients include polypharmacy, increased risk of falls and cognitive impairment. Chronic diseases, including hypertension, deteriorate baroreceptor function and result in irreversible changes in cerebral and coronary circulation. Concurrent frailty or other components of geriatric syndrome in elderly patients are associated with a worse perception of health, an increased number of comorbidities and social isolation of the patient. It may also interfere with treatment adherence. Identifying causes of non-adherence to pharmaceutical treatment is a key factor in planning therapeutic interventions aimed at increasing control, preventing complications, and improving long-term outcomes and any adverse effects of treatment. Diagnosis of frailty and awareness of the associated difficulties in adhering to treatment may allow targeting of those elderly patients who have a poorer prognosis or may be at risk of complications from untreated or undertreated hypertension, and for the planning of interventions to improve hypertension control.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Purpose To determine the predictive value of quality of life for mortality at the domain and item levels. Methods This longitudinal study was carried out in a sample of 479 Dutch people aged 75 years or older living independently, using a follow-up of 7 years. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire. Quality of life was assessed with the WHOQOL-BREF, including four domains: physical health, psychological, social relationships, and environment. The municipality of Roosendaal (a town in the Netherlands) indicated the dates of death of the individuals. Results Based on mean, all quality of life domains predicted mortality adjusted for gender, age, marital status, education, and income. The hazard ratios ranged from 0.811 (psychological) to 0.933 (social relationships). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the four domains were 0.730 (physical health), 0.723 (psychological), 0.693 (social relationships), and 0.700 (environment). In all quality of life domains, at least one item predicted mortality (adjusted). Conclusion Our study showed that all four quality of life domains belonging to the WHOQOL-BREF predict mortality in a sample of Dutch community-dwelling older people using a follow-up period of 7 years. Two AUCs were above threshold (psychological, physical health). The findings offer health care and welfare professionals evidence for conducting interventions to reduce the risk of premature death.
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
