4.5 Article

Sexual problems in elderly male and female patients with heart failure

Journal

HEART
Volume 98, Issue 22, Pages 1647-1652

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302305

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2000Z003, D97.017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To investigate perceived sexual problems in a large group of younger and older patients with heart failure (HF), with and without a partner, focusing on a broad range of perceived sexual problems, and compare this with a sample of healthy community-dwelling elderly people. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting 17 HF clinics and general practices in The Netherlands. Participants 438 patients with HF and 459 healthy community-dwelling elderly people. Main Outcome Measures Differences in sexual functioning, related factors and perceived causes of sexual problems between patients with HF and healthy community controls. Results In total, 59% of HF patients reported sexual problems, mostly problems with erectile function. HF patients with a partner (67%) and younger patients (65%) reported significantly more sexual problems than healthy community controls (58%, p=0.011 and 53%, p=0.011, respectively). Multivariate analyses show that sexual problems in HF patients with a partner were more common in men (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.572 to 4.753) and in those with a prescription of beta-blockers (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.586). In younger patients, sexual problems were independently associated with male gender (OR 3.21, 95% CI 2.099 to 4.908) and having a partner (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.283 to 3.110). HF patients mainly attribute their sexual problems to symptoms of HF. Conclusion Sexual problems are common in patients with HF, particularly in younger patients and those with a partner. As patients attribute their sexual problems mostly to HF symptoms, adequate treatment and education of HF patients is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available