4.6 Article

UNDERSTANDING RISK IN THE OLDEST OLD: FRAILTY AND THE METABOLIC SYNDROME IN A CHINESE COMMUNITY SAMPLE AGED 90+YEARS

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 82-88

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-016-0680-7

关键词

Deficit accumulation; frailty index; metabolic syndrome; mortality; frailty

资金

  1. Discipline Construction Foundation of Sichuan University
  2. Science and Technology Bureau of Sichuan Province [2006Z09-006-4]
  3. Construction Fund for Subjects of West China Hospital of Sichuan University [XK05001]
  4. Fountain Innovation Fund of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre Foundation, Halifax, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between frailty and the metabolic syndrome and to evaluate how these contribute to mortality in very old people. Design: Secondary analysis of data from the Project of Longevity and Aging in Dujiangyan. Setting: Community sample from Sichuan Province, China. Participants: People aged 90+ years (n=767; baseline age=93.7+/-3.4 years; 68.0% women. Measurements: After a baseline health assessment, participants were followed for four years (54.0% died). A frailty index (FI) was calculated as the sum of deficits present, divided by the 35 health-related deficits considered. Relationships between the FI and the metabolic syndrome were tested; their effect on death was examined. Results: The mean FI was 0.26 +/-0.11. Higher FI scores were associated with a greater risk of death, adjusted for age, sex, education, and metabolic syndrome items. The hazard ratio was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 1.02, 1.04) for each 1% percent increase of the FI. The mortality risk did not change with the metabolic syndrome (odds ratio=0.99; 0.71-1.36). Conclusions: In the oldest old, frailty was a significant risk for near-term death, regardless of the metabolic syndrome. Even using age-adjusted models, the epidemiology of late life illness may need to account for frailty routinely.

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