| Title |
Association between a frailty index based on common laboratory tests and QTc prolongation in older adults: the Rugao Longevity and Ageing Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s149791 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Teng Ma, Jian Cai, Yin-Sheng Zhu, Xue-Feng Chu, Yong Wang, Guo-Ping Shi, Zheng-Dong Wang, Shun Yao, Xiao-Feng Wang, Xiao-Yan Jiang |
| Abstract |
Risk factors for heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) proglongation should be explored to stratify high-risk individuals to aid the prevention of incident cardiovascular events and mortality. The diversity of risk factors for QTc prolongation suggests that use of the frailty index (FI), indicating general health deficits, may be an effective approach, especially in the elderly, to identify the risk of QTc prolongation. We used the data of 1,780 individuals aged 70-87 years from the Rugao Longevity and Ageing Study (RuLAS), a community-based longitudinal study. The FI was constructed using 20 routine laboratory tests, plus the body mass index and measures of systolic and diastolic blood pressures (FI-Lab). The mean FI-Lab value was 0.24±0.09. The mean heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) was 407±38 ms. The prevalence of QTc prolongation was 5.2% in elderly community populations aged 70-87 years. A higher FI-Lab value was associated with a higher risk for QTc prolongation. Each 10% increase in the FI-Lab value increased the odds ratio (OR) by 33% (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.07-1.64). Compared with the lowest quartile, the top quartile FI-Lab score was associated with a 2.50-fold QTc prolongation risk in elderly individuals (95% CI: 1.21-5.19). An FI based on routine laboratory data can identify older adults at increased risk for QTc prolongation. The FI approach may therefore be useful for the risk stratification of QTc prolongation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,255
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,892
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#37
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.