Key result
Practicing a siesta was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality over 12 years compared to no siesta (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.7).
Why the study?
Does taking a siesta predict mortality in 70-year-old adults?
Cohort (n=455)
No
Does taking a siesta predict mortality in 70-year-old adults?
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine effect of siesta on mortality. DESIGN: A 12 years prospective cohort. SETTING: Population sample. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of Jerusalem (n=455), 70 year olds. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. RESULTS: There were more males in the group with the siesta (n=276), 68% and more (16%) past myocardial infarction than those without the siesta, 6% (n=179) p < 0.01. After 12 years 147 subjects died. Survival was 64% in people practicing the siesta, and 74%, who did not p = 0.005. In a Cox proportional hazard model, that included many confounding factors hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 1.6 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.7, for those who napped. After exclusion of the 19 subjects who died during the first 2 years of follow-up, the hazard ratio was not materially altered, HR of 1.6 95% CI, 1.0-2.6. CONCLUSION: Although causality is not clear, the siesta appears to be a significantly independent mortality predictor.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Siesta may signal higher mortality in older adults; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bursztyn et al. (2005) conducted a cohort in General population (n=455). Siesta vs. No siesta was evaluated on Mortality (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.7, p=0.005). Practicing a siesta was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality over 12 years compared to no siesta (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.7).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: