Why the study?
Are cardiac variables such as ejection fraction, blood pressure, functional status, and BNP associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment in heart failure patients?
Are cardiac variables such as ejection fraction, blood pressure, functional status, and BNP associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment in heart failure patients?
Commonly assessed cardiac variables during heart failure hospitalizations can serve as a phenotypic profile to identify patients at increased risk for cognitive impairment, prompting further evaluation and tailored interventions.
May prompt cognitive evaluation in select HF patients; leaves open prospective validation of this profile.
BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment among patients with heart failure can be subtle. Heart failure-related variables such as ejection fraction, low systolic blood pressure and functional status are reportedly associated with cognitive impairment among heart failure patients. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the value of cardiac variables commonly assessed during heart failure-related hospitalizations for a phenotypic profile of the risk of cognitive impairment. METHOD: A literature review of primary research studies was conducted. Electronic databases (PubMed and CINAHL) were searched using the keywords heart failure, blood pressure, ejection fraction, functional status, and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in combination with the terms cognition, cognitive function, cognitive dysfunction, and cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Evidence supports the potential utility of lower ejection fraction, lower blood pressure and functional status and elevated B-type natriuretic peptide as a phenotypic profile for an increased risk of cognitive impairment. IMPLICATIONS: If the risk for cognitive impairment is suspected, specific evaluations of cognition can be performed. For community-dwelling heart failure patients with mild cognitive impairment, more intense interventions to support self-care, increased family involvement and more frequent follow up may be necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jurgens et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: