4.6 Article

Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Incidence of Bradycardia in Patients with Dementia in the Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 57, 期 11, 页码 1997-2003

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02488.x

关键词

cholinesterase inhibitors; bradycardia; dementia; Alzheimer's disease

资金

  1. VA Healthcare System Boston
  2. VA Cooperative Studies Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To quantify the association between cholinesterase inhibitors (ChE-Is) and a new diagnosis of bradycardia and to evaluate the clinical significance of bradycardia. DESIGN Cox proportional hazards with time-dependent exposures were used to evaluate the association and examine the dose effect for donepezil and bradycardia. SETTING New England Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS Patients with dementia who received care between January 1999 and June 2007 (N=11,328). MEASUREMENTS Bradycardia was defined using three methods using a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes and recorded heart rates of less than 60 beats per minute. RESULTS A greater risk for bradycardia was found in patients taking any ChE-Is than in the no-treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.1-1.6). A dose-response effect was observed for donepezil, with the highest-dose group at greatest risk (HR=2.1, 95% CI=1.5-2.9). Results were consistent regardless of bradycardia definition. Patients with bradycardia were more likely to fall, experience syncope, or need a pacemaker implantation than those without. CONCLUSION Using a large cohort, a modestly greater risk of bradycardia was found in patients with dementia taking ChE-Is than in those not taking these drugs. In patients taking donepezil, the risk of bradycardia may increase with increasing doses. Because of the potential clinical consequences, monitoring for bradycardia may be warranted in patients with dementia treated with ChE-Is.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据