Abstract
Objective
Cognitive function decline is influenced by cardiovascular diseases and associated risk factors. However, changes in the cognitive function of patients with cardiovascular diseases during hospitalization and the factors influencing these changes remain unclear. This study elucidated the proportion and characteristics of changes in cognitive function during hospitalization in patients with cardiovascular diseases.
Methods
We conducted cognitive function assessments at admission and discharge for patients with cardiovascular diseases. Using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J), we categorized the patients into cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and non-cognitive impairment. Changes in MMSE or MoCA-J scores of ≥2 points at discharge were classified as improvement or decline, and all others as maintenance.
Results
The cognitive impairment, MCI, and non-cognitive impairment categories comprised 215 (41.3%), 224 (40.2%), and 103 (18.5%) patients, respectively. The results of the cognitive function assessment at the time of discharge classified 90 patients (35.9%) into the maintenance group, 117 (46.6%) into the improvement group, and 44 (17.5%) into the decline group based on changes during hospitalization. There was a statistically significant difference among the three groups only in cognitive function at admission (P = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, those with MCI or cognitive impairment at admission and younger patients were associated with improved cognitive function during hospitalization. No factors were extracted that showed statistically significant associations with cognitive decline.
Conclusion
Approximately half of the patients with cardiovascular disease experienced improvements in cognitive function during hospitalization, while approximately 20% showed a decline in cognitive function during the same period. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing cognitive changes in hospitalized patients with cardiovascular disease. Future studies are needed to identify factors associated with changes in cognitive function.
Introduction
In Japan, the aging population of individuals with cardiovascular diseases has increased [1], and the prevalence of cognitive impairment among these patients has become a significant concern [2]. Patients with cardiovascular disease who experience cognitive dysfunction have a poor life prognosis [3], increased risk of rehospitalization [4], and decreased activities of daily living (ADL) functionality [5]. Therefore, the assessment and intervention of cognitive function in patients with cardiovascular disease are recommended in rehabilitation guidelines for cardiovascular diseases [6].
Cardiovascular diseases and associated risk factors have been reported as contributors to age-related cognitive decline [7,8]. Factors such as bed rest during hospitalization and environmental changes pose risks for cognitive impairment [9,10]. The cognitive function of patients with cardiovascular disease may decline during hospitalization. However, treatments for cardiovascular disease often result in increased cardiac output and cerebral blood flow [11,12]. Previous studies have indicated increased cerebral blood flow is associated with improved cognitive function [13–15]. Therefore, treatment may improve cognitive function in patients with cardiovascular disease.
However, evidence regarding cognitive function changes in patients with cardiovascular disease during hospitalization remains insufficient. Research reporting changes in cognitive function during hospitalization for patients with cardiovascular disease is scarce, and the factors influencing these changes still need to be clarified. Consequently, this study aimed to elucidate the percentage of patients with cardiovascular disease experiencing changes in cognitive function during hospitalization and identify the characteristics associated with such changes.
Materials and methods
We accessed medical records to conduct this retrospective study on August 28, 2022. The study population consisted of patients admitted to the Cardiology Department of our hospital from September 2019 to March 2022 who underwent cardiac rehabilitation interventions and for whom cognitive function assessment at the time of admission was feasible. Individuals who declined cognitive function assessment, those with severe visual impairment or hearing difficulties hindering assessment, those discharged within one week of the initial cognitive function evaluation, and those with dementia were excluded.
On admission, cognitive function, physical function, and clinical background factors were assessed, with a follow-up cognitive function reassessment at discharge. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [16] and the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) [17]. Initially, the MMSE was conducted upon admission, and individuals with scores ≤23 were classified as having cognitive impairment [16,18]. Individuals scoring ≥24 underwent subsequent evaluation with the MoCA-J. MoCA-J scores ≤25 indicated mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and scores ≥26 indicated non-cognitive impairment [17]. Individuals in the cognitive impairment group underwent MMSE reassessment at discharge, whereas those in the MCI and non-cognitive impairment groups underwent MoCA-J reassessment. Improvement was defined as a change of ≥2 points in MMSE or MoCA-J scores from those at admission; individuals showing an increase were categorized as the improvement group, those showing a decrease as the decline group, and the remainder as the maintenance group [19–22]. Occupational therapists performed the cognitive function tests according to the manual. Physical function was assessed using grip strength and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) [23–25].
Clinical background factors extracted from medical records included diagnosis on admission, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), left ventricle ejection fraction, serum albumin (Alb), hemoglobin, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), C-reactive protein (CRP), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), admission blood pressure and heart rate, pre-admission ADL (Katz index), presence of dementia, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure admission, lower limb peripheral arterial disease, and malignant tumors), care level, facility admission, employment status, history of falls, length of hospital stay, and outcomes. The GNRI was calculated as 14.89 × serum Alb value + 41.7 × (admission weight/ideal weight) [26].
Comparisons of patient background factors among the cognitive impairment, MCI, and non-cognitive impairment groups at admission were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis or χ2 test. Three-group comparisons of cognitive function changes were conducted using the Kruskal–Wallis or χ2 test for each group based on cognitive function at admission. A multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed using a change in cognitive function during hospitalization as the outcome. Four models were created with a maximum of five independent variables to account for overfitting. Model 1 used severity of cardiac disease, Model 2 used laboratory data, Model 3 used comorbidities, and Model 4 used pre-admission activity status and physical function at admission as independent variables. Comparisons of background factors between those with and without follow-up cognitive function during hospitalization were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U or χ2 test. Statistical analyses were performed using R and EZR software [27]. R is an open-source free software. The statistical significance level was set at 5%.
This study was approved by the Tokyo Police Hospital Ethics Committee (approval number: 19-A20). Medical records were used, and the Ethics Committee waived the requirement for informed consent. All participants were informed of their inclusion in the study and that they were free to withdraw at any time.
Results
A total of 828 individuals were admitted during the study period, and 611 underwent MMSE assessments. Among these, 215 individuals scored ≤23 on the MMSE, whereas 396 individuals scored ≥24. Among the 396 individuals with MMSE scores ≥24, 327 underwent MoCA-J assessments. Of the total study population, 215 individuals (41.3%) were classified as having cognitive impairment, 224 (40.2%) as having MCI, and 103 (18.5%) as having non-cognitive impairment. Background factors among patients in the three groups are presented in Table 1. Age, sex, BMI, Alb, BNP, CRP, eGFR, GNRI, heart rate, pre-hospitalization Katz index, diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, care levels of Japanese public long-term care insurance, nursing home resident, employment status, length of hospital stay, outcomes, grip strength, and SPPB were significantly different among the three groups.
Table 1. Patient characteristics stratified by cognitive function at admission.
| Non-cognitive impairment (N = 103) | MCI (N = 224) | Cognitive impairment (N = 215) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cause of hospitalization (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Heart failure | 71 (68.9) | 184 (82.1) | 187 (87.0) | |
| Coronary artery disease | 32 (31.1) | 35 (15.6) | 24 (11.2) | |
| Other | 0 (0.0) | 5 (2.2) | 4 (1.9) | |
| Age, years | 71 [63–81] | 84.00 [76–87] | 87 [83–92] | <0.001 |
| Women (%) | 30 (29.1) | 93 (41.5) | 141 (65.6) | <0.001 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.1 [21.3–26.4] | 22.9 [20.0–25.5] | 21.0 [18.8–24.1] | <0.001 |
| LVEF, % | 53.6 [33.7–64.5] | 53.2 [34.9–63.8] | 54.3 [40.5–65.1] | 0.586 |
| Alb, g/dL | 3.7 [3.4–4.0] | 3.6 [3.3–3.9] | 3.4 [3.1–3.7] | <0.001 |
| Hb, g/dL | 12.8 [11.4–14.7] | 12.0 [10.2–14.0] | 11.1 [9.7–12.3] | <0.001 |
| BNP, pg/mL | 346.1 [111.9–607.3] | 472.1 [221.9–822.6] | 478.7 [237.8–969.1] | 0.001 |
| CRP, mg/dL | 0.4 [0.1–1.6] | 0.6 [0.1–2.9] | 0.8 [0.2–3.4] | 0.012 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 51.3 [36.8–66.4] | 42.0 [27.4–57.1] | 37.0 [25.0–48.9] | <0.001 |
| GNRI, score | 99.9 [93.2–109.7] | 97.1 [89.5–103.9] | 89.8 [84.7–97.7] | <0.001 |
| SBP, mmHg | 133 [114–155] | 139 [118–161] | 137 [117–162] | 0.345 |
| DBP, mmHg | 81 [66–94] | 78 [65–93] | 76 [63–90] | 0.143 |
| Heart rate, bpm | 87 [72–107] | 90 [76–107] | 86 [70–100] | 0.042 |
| Pre-hospitalization Katz index, score | 6.00 [6–6] | 6 [6–6] | 6 [2–6] | <0.001 |
| Hypertension (%) | 58 (56.3) | 136 (59.4) | 114 (53.0) | 0.407 |
| Diabetes (%) | 31 (30.1) | 62 (27.7) | 40 (18.6) | 0.030 |
| Dyslipidemia (%) | 16 (23.9) | 35 (23.3) | 15 (11.7) | 0.027 |
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 36 (35.0) | 100 (44.6) | 92 (42.8) | 0.247 |
| Chronic kidney disease (%) | 12 (17.9) | 38 (25.3) | 31 (24.2) | 0.477 |
| COPD (%) | 6 (5.8) | 14 (6.2) | 11 (5.1) | 0.876 |
| Cerebrovascular disease (%) | 13 (12.6) | 39 (17.4) | 52 (24.2) | 0.034 |
| Angina pectoris (%) | 8 (11.9) | 10 (6.7) | 7 (5.5) | 0.238 |
| Myocardial infarction (%) | 13 (12.6) | 52 (23.2) | 40 (18.6) | 0.074 |
| Heart failure admission (%) | 36 (37.1) | 90 (41.9) | 84 (40.2) | 0.731 |
| Lower limb peripheral arterial disease (%) | 1 (1.5) | 8 (5.3) | 5 (3.9) | 0.413 |
| Malignant tumors (%) | 10 (14.9) | 31 (20.7) | 29 (22.7) | 0.439 |
| Care levels of Japanese public long-term care insurance (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Nothing | 95 (92.2) | 150 (67.0) | 78 (36.8) | |
| Support Level 1 | 4 (3.9) | 21 (9.4) | 30 (14.2) | |
| Support Level 2 | 3 (2.9) | 16 (7.1) | 13 (6.1) | |
| Care Levels 1 | 1 (1.0) | 11 (4.9) | 29 (13.7) | |
| Care Levels 2 | 0 (0.0) | 17 (7.6) | 23 (10.8) | |
| Care Levels 3 | 0 (0.0) | 7 (3.1) | 21 (9.9) | |
| Care Levels 4 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.9) | 13 (6.1) | |
| Care Levels 5 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (2.4) | |
| Nursing home resident (%) | 1 (1.0) | 8 (3.6) | 22 (10.2) | 0.001 |
| Employment status (%) | 41 (39.8) | 43 (19.2) | 13 (6.0) | <0.001 |
| Length of hospital stay, days | 12 [9–17] | 14 [11–19] | 17 [13–25] | <0.001 |
| Outcomes (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Home or the original facility | 98 (95.1) | 208 (92.9) | 171 (79.6) | |
| Transfer to another hospital | 4 3.9) | 6 (2.7) | 19 (8.8) | |
| Admission to a facility | 0 (0.0) | 4 (1.8) | 7 (3.3) | |
| In-hospital death | 1 (1.0) | 2 (0.9) | 16 (7.4) | |
| Transfer to another department | 0 (0.0) | 4 (1.8) | 2 (0.9) | |
| Grip strength (women), kg | 18.2 [16.4–20.7] | 15.2 [12.4–18.8] | 12.3 [9.0–14.9] | <0.001 |
| Grip strength (men), kg | 31.4 [25.9–37.3] | 26.1 [22.4–30.8] | 21.0 [17.1–25.9] | <0.001 |
| SPPB, score | 10 [8–12] | 7 [4–10] | 3 [1–6] | <0.001 |
Data are presented as median [25%-75%] or number (%).
Alb: Albumin, BMI: Body mass index, BNP: Brain natriuretic peptide, COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CRP: C-reactive protein, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate, GNRI: Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, Hb: Hemoglobin, LVEF: Left ventricle ejection fraction, MCI: Mild cognitive impairment,, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, SPPB: Short physical performance battery.
The results of the cognitive function assessment at the time of discharge classified 90 patients (35.9%) into the maintenance group, 117 (46.6%) into the improvement group, and 44 (17.5%) into the decline group (Table 2). There was a statistically significant difference among the three groups only in cognitive function at admission (P = 0.026). Other patient characteristics were not significantly different (Table 2).
Table 2. Patient characteristics stratified by change in cognitive function.
| Maintenance group (N = 90) |
Improvement group (N = 117) |
Decline group (N = 44) |
P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cause of hospitalization (%) | 0.404 | |||
| Heart failure | 77 (85.6) | 96 (82.1) | 41 (93.2) | |
| Coronary artery disease | 11 (12.2) | 19 (16.2) | 2 (4.5) | |
| Other | 2 (2.2) | 2 (1.7) | 1 (2.3) | |
| Age, years | 87 [80–91] | 85 [77–89] | 86 [82–90] | 0.095 |
| Women (%) | 56 (62.2) | 55 (47.0) | 25 (56.8) | 0.087 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 22.1 [18.6–24.0] | 22.1 [19.4–25.2] | 20.3 [18.8–23.5] | 0.210 |
| LVEF, % | 48.5 [37.3–63.6] | 52.0 [35.3–63.7] | 54.3 [43.7–64.4] | 0.761 |
| Alb, g/dL | 3.5 [3.3–3.8] | 3.4 [3.1–3.7] | 3.5 [3.1–3.8] | 0.222 |
| Hb, g/dL | 11.4 [10.1–12.7] | 11.5 [10.0–13.3] | 11.4 [10.0–12.7] | 0.657 |
| BNP, pg/mL | 465.6 [244.5–1063.5] | 479.4 [210.7–924.5] | 569.7 [351.1–1131.6] | 0.298 |
| CRP, mg/dL | 0.8 [0.1–2.6] | 1.1 [0.3–3.9] | 0.8 [0.2–1.9] | 0.161 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 34.5 [24.6–49.3] | 41.4 [27.8–54.6] | 34.1 [25.4–46.6] | 0.105 |
| GNRI, score | 93.8 [86.0–100.7] | 92.4 [85.4–100.6] | 90.2 [86.7–94.9] | 0.462 |
| SBP, mmHg | 140 [116–165] | 137 [115–160] | 132 [108–158] | 0.465 |
| DBP, mmHg | 81 [61–97] | 77 [63–91] | 72 [66–90] | 0.495 |
| Heart rate, bpm | 85 [75–100] | 87 [74–102] | 80 [69–98] | 0.507 |
| Pre-hospitalization Katz index, score | 6 [5–6] | 6.00 [6–6] | 6 [3–6] | 0.224 |
| Hypertension (%) | 55 (61.1) | 59 (50.4) | 19 (43.2) | 0.111 |
| Diabetes (%) | 22 (24.4) | 30 (25.6) | 6 (13.6) | 0.255 |
| Dyslipidemia (%) | 14 (23.7) | 16 (20.5) | 5 (19.2) | 0.861 |
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 35 (38.9) | 51 (43.6) | 21 (47.7) | 0.599 |
| Chronic kidney disease (%) | 18 (30.5) | 18 (23.1) | 7 (26.9) | 0.619 |
| COPD (%) | 5 (5.6) | 7 (6.0) | 2 (4.5) | 0.939 |
| Cerebrovascular disease (%) | 21 (23.3) | 20 (17.1) | 9 (20.5) | 0.535 |
| Angina pectoris (%) | 1 (1.7) | 5 (6.4) | 1 (3.8) | 0.400 |
| Myocardial infarction (%) | 18 (20.0) | 25 (21.4) | 6 (13.6) | 0.539 |
| Heart failure admission (%) | 38 (43.2) | 51 (44.3) | 18 (40.9) | 0.926 |
| Lower limb peripheral arterial disease (%) | 4 (6.8) | 5 (6.4) | 3 (11.5) | 0.671 |
| Malignant tumors (%) | 14 (23.7) | 19 (24.4) | 3 (11.5) | 0.366 |
| Care levels of Japanese public long-term care insurance (%) | 0.406 | |||
| Nothing | 40 (44.9) | 61 (52.6) | 23 (52.3) | |
| Support Level 1 | 12 (13.5) | 17 (14.7) | 4 (9.1) | |
| Support Level 2 | 7 (7.9) | 6 (5.2) | 2 (4.5) | |
| Care Levels 1 | 7 (7.9) | 7 (6.0) | 8 (18.2) | |
| Care Levels 2 | 11 (12.4) | 11 (9.5) | 1 (2.3) | |
| Care Levels 3 | 8 (9.0) | 10 (8.6) | 2 (4.5) | |
| Care Levels 4 | 3 (3.4) | 2 (1.7) | 3 (6.8) | |
| Care Levels 5 | 1 (1.1) | 2 (1.7) | 1 (2.3) | |
| Nursing home resident (%) | 7 (7.8) | 7 (6.0) | 2 (4.5) | 0.751 |
| Employment status (%) | 8 (8.9) | 17 (14.5) | 4 (9.1) | 0.387 |
| Length of hospital stay, days | 18 [14–29] | 19 [15–25] | 20 [14–29] | 0.703 |
| Outcomes (%) | 0.569 | |||
| Home or the original facility | 80 (88.9) | 105 (89.7) | 38 (86.4) | |
| Transfer to another hospital | 6 (6.7) | 6 (5.1) | 5 (11.4) | |
| Admission to a facility | 4 (4.4) | 4 (3.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| In-hospital death | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Transfer to another department | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (2.3) | |
| Grip strength (women), kg | 12.8 [10.3–17.1] | 12.9 [11.4–16.0] | 12.3 [10.2–14.3] | 0.415 |
| Grip strength (men), kg | 25.2 [22.1–27.8] | 22.4 [19.0–27.3] | 23.0 [18.5–27.4] | 0.188 |
| SPPB, score | 6 [3–9] | 5 [2–8] | 4 [2–7] | 0.329 |
| Cognitive function (%) | 0.026 | |||
| Non-cognitive impairment | 15 (16.7) | 6 (5.1) | 7 (15.9) | |
| MCI | 37 (41.1) | 45 (38.5) | 12 (27.3) | |
| Cognitive impairment | 38 (42.2) | 66 (56.4) | 25 (56.8) |
Data are presented as median [25%-75%] or number (%).
Alb: Albumin, BMI: Body mass index, BNP: Brain natriuretic peptide, COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CRP: C-reactive protein, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate, GNRI: Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, Hb: Hemoglobin, LVEF: Left ventricle ejection fraction, MCI: Mild cognitive impairment, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, SPPB: Short physical performance battery.
The results of the multivariate analysis of factors associated with changes in cognitive function during hospitalization are shown in Table 3. Multivariate analysis identified MCI at admission, cognitive decline at admission, and age as factors associated with cognitive improvement when the reference was cognitive maintenance (MCI, odds ratio (OR) = 5.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69–18.7; Cognitive impairment, OR = 12.3, 95% CI: 3.47–43.5; Age, OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92–0.99). Sex, log-BNP, and length of hospital stay were not significantly associated with improved cognitive function when the reference was cognitive maintenance. With reference to maintenance of cognitive function, age, sex, log-BNP, days in hospital, and cognitive function at admission were not significantly associated with cognitive decline. Similarly, models were created to investigate laboratory data, comorbidities, pre-admission activity status, and physical function. However, only age and cognitive function at admission were associated with improved cognitive function during hospitalization, and no factors related to cognitive decline during hospitalization were extracted.
Table 3. Examination of factors associated with changes in cognitive function.
| Reference: maintenance group | Improvement group | Decline group | Improvement group | Decline group | Improvement group | Decline group | Improvement group | Decline group | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | |||||||||
| Non-cognitive impairment | reference | reference | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| MCI | 5.62 | (1.69–18.7) | <0.001 | 0.63 | (0.19–2.09) | 0.454 | 9.60 | (2.55–36.1) | <0.001 | 0.82 | (0.24–2.80) | 0.747 | 5.62 | (1.64–19.2) | 0.006 | 0.56 | (0.17–1.87) | 0.349 | 6.13 | (1.82–20.6) | 0.003 | 0.61 | (0.18–2.07) | 0.424 |
| Cognitive impairment | 12.3 | (3.47–43.5) | <0.001 | 1.38 | (0.42–4.57) | 0.595 | 16.6 | (4.12–66.9) | <0.001 | 1.36 | (0.39–4.75) | 0.629 | 11.3 | (3.10–41.4) | <0.001 | 1.16 | (0.35–3.87) | 0.813 | 9.48 | (2.56–35.2) | <0.001 | 1.07 | (0.29–3.98) | 0.921 |
| Age, years | 0.96 | (0.92–0.99) | 0.013 | 1.01 | (0.97–1.06) | 0.659 | 0.95 | (0.92–0.98) | 0.004 | 1.01 | (0.97–1.06) | 0.533 | 0.94 | (0.91–0.97) | <0.001 | 1.00 | (0.96–1.05) | 0.895 | 0.95 | (0.91–0.99) | 0.011 | 1.00 | (0.95–1.06) | 0.929 |
| Man, vs women | 1.89 | (0.98–3.65) | 0.058 | 1.57 | (0.69–3.57) | 0.285 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Log-BNP | 0.92 | (0.70–1.22) | 0.562 | 1.26 | (0.87–1.83) | 0.226 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Length of hospital stay, day | 0.99 | (0.97–1.01) | 0.391 | 1.00 | (0.98–1.02) | 0.993 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Alb, g/dL | 0.51 | (0.26–1.00) | 0.051 | 0.67 | (0.29–1.58) | 0.364 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Hb, g/dL | 1.08 | (0.93–1.24) | 0.305 | 1.03 | (0.86–1.23) | 0.746 | ||||||||||||||||||
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 1.02 | (1.00–1.04) | 0.055 | 1.01 | (0.99–1.03) | 0.244 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 1.13 | (0.60–2.15) | 0.698 | 1.53 | (0.69–3.40) | 0.299 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Heart failure admission (%) | 1.24 | (0.65–2.34) | 0.516 | 0.79 | (0.35–1.77) | 0.567 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Cerebrovascular disease (%) | 0.52 | (0.25–1.10) | 0.088 | 0.85 | (0.34–2.12) | 0.727 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Employment status (%) | 1.43 | (0.46–4.44) | 0.538 | 1.41 | (0.30–6.57) | 0.661 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Pre-hospitalization Katz index, score | 1.12 | (0.93–1.36) | 0.234 | 0.96 | (0.77–1.21) | 0.748 | ||||||||||||||||||
| SPPB, score | 0.92 | (0.83–1.03) | 0.146 | 0.94 | (0.82–1.09) | 0.422 | ||||||||||||||||||
Alb: Albumin, BNP: Brain natriuretic peptide, CI: Confidence interval, eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate, Hb: Hemoglobin, MCI: Mild cognitive impairment, OR: Odds ratio, SPPB: Short physical performance battery.
The background factors of individuals who dropped out of cognitive function assessment follow-up during hospitalization, compared to those of individuals who continued, are presented in Table 4. The dropout group had a higher proportion of younger individuals, males, those not requiring care, and those with higher BMI, higher Alb, higher Hb, lower BNP, lower CRP, higher eGFR, higher GNRI, higher pre-hospitalization Katz index, lower rate of lower limb peripheral arterial disease, higher employment rate, shorter length of hospital stay, higher in-hospital death rate, higher grip strength, higher SPPB score, and better cognitive function at admission.
Table 4. Characteristics of patients who dropped out and those who continued follow-up.
| Dropout (N = 291) | Follow-up (N = 251) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cause of hospitalization (%) | |||
| Heart failure | 228 (78.4) | 214 (85.3) | 0.051 |
| Coronary artery disease | 59 (20.3) | 32 (12.7) | |
| Other | 4 (1.4) | 5 (2.0) | |
| Age, years | 82 [72–88] | 85 [80–90] | <0.001 |
| Women (%) | 128 (44.0) | 136 (54.2) | 0.020 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 23.0 [20.4–25.9] | 21.9 [19.1–24.7] | 0.001 |
| LVEF, % | 54.1 [36.7–64.9] | 52.1 [37.0–64.0] | 0.637 |
| Alb, g/dL | 3.6 [3.3–3.9] | 3.5 [3.2–3.8] | 0.001 |
| Hb, g/dL | 11.9 [10.3–13.8] | 11.4 [10.0–12.9] | 0.008 |
| BNP, pg/mL | 417.0 [180.2–692.8] | 490.5 [244.4–1057.0] | <0.001 |
| CRP, mg/dL | 0.5 [0.1–2.6] | 0.9 [0.2–3.0] | 0.018 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 44.7 [29.5–58.0] | 38.9 [25.4–50.6] | 0.002 |
| GNRI, score | 96.9 [89.8–105.6] | 92.2 [85.6–99.4] | <0.001 |
| SBP, mmHg | 137 [118–161] | 137 [113–160] | 0.745 |
| DBP, mmHg | 78 [65–93] | 77 [63–93] | 0.569 |
| Heart rate, bpm | 88 [72–107] | 86 [74–101] | 0.150 |
| Pre-hospitalization Katz index, score | 6 [6–6] | 6 [5–6] | 0.002 |
| Hypertension (%) | 172 (59.1) | 133 (53.0) | 0.165 |
| Diabetes (%) | 75 (25.8) | 58 (23.1) | 0.485 |
| Dyslipidemia (%) | 31 (17.0) | 35 (21.5) | 0.338 |
| Atrial fibrillation (%) | 121 (41.6) | 107 (42.6) | 0.862 |
| Chronic kidney disease (%) | 38 (20.9) | 43 (26.4) | 0.253 |
| COPD (%) | 17 (5.8) | 14 (5.6) | 1.000 |
| Cerebrovascular disease (%) | 54 (18.6) | 50 (19.9) | 0.743 |
| Angina pectoris (%) | 18 (9.9) | 7 (4.3) | 0.060 |
| Myocardial infarction (%) | 56 (19.2) | 49 (19.5) | 1.000 |
| Heart failure admission (%) | 103 (37.6) | 107 (43.3) | 0.211 |
| Lower limb peripheral arterial disease (%) | 2 (1.1) | 12 (7.4) | 0.005 |
| Malignant tumors (%) | 34 (18.7) | 36 (22.1) | 0.503 |
| Care levels of Japanese public long-term care insurance (%) | |||
| Nothing | 199 (68.6) | 124 (49.8) | <0.001 |
| Support Level 1 | 22 (7.6) | 33 (13.3) | |
| Support Level 2 | 17 (5.9) | 15 (6.0) | |
| Care Levels 1 | 19 (6.6) | 22 (8.8) | |
| Care Levels 2 | 17 (5.9) | 23 (9.2) | |
| Care Levels 3 | 8 (2.8) | 20 (8.0) | |
| Care Levels 4 | 7 (2.4) | 8 (3.2) | |
| Care Levels 5 | 1 (0.3) | 4 (1.6) | |
| Nursing home resident (%) | 15 (5.2) | 16 (6.4) | 0.581 |
| Employment status (%) | 68 (23.4) | 29 (11.6) | <0.001 |
| Length of hospital stay, days | 12 [9–16] | 19 [14–27] | <0.001 |
| Outcomes (%) | |||
| Home or the original facility | 254 (87.3) | 223 (88.8) | <0.001 |
| Transfer to another hospital | 12 (4.1) | 17 (6.8) | |
| Admission to a facility | 3 (1.0) | 8 (3.2) | |
| In-hospital death | 18 (6.2) | 1 (0.4) | |
| Transfer to another department | 4 (1.4) | 2 (0.8) | |
| Grip strength (women), kg | 15.3 [12.0–18.3] | 12.8 [10.7–16.1] | 0.001 |
| Grip strength (men), kg | 29.0 [23.3–34.5] | 23.8 [19.2–27.7] | <0.001 |
| SPPB, score | 8 [4–11] | 5 [2–8] | <0.001 |
| Cognitive function (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Non-cognitive impairment | 75 (25.8) | 28 (11.2) | |
| MCI | 130 (44.7) | 94 (37.5) | |
| Cognitive impairment | 86 (29.6) | 129 (51.4) |
Data are presented as median [25%–75%] or number (%).
Alb: Albumin, BMI: Body mass index, BNP: Brain natriuretic peptide, COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CRP: C-reactive protein, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate, GNRI: Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, Hb: Hemoglobin, LVEF: Left ventricle ejection fraction, MCI: Mild cognitive impairment, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, SPPB: Short physical performance battery.
Discussion
Cognitive impairment in patients with cardiovascular diseases is associated with poor prognosis, increased risk of rehospitalization, and functional outcomes. Prevention of cognitive impairment is crucial for disease management. However, the actual changes in cognitive function during hospitalization in patients with cardiac disease and the factors associated with these changes are unknown. To the best of our knowledge, tThis study is the first to elucidate the changes in cognitive function during hospitalization for patients with cardiovascular disease and to investigate their characteristics. The novelty of this research lies in the two-point assessment during hospitalization, which revealed that 46.6% of patients with cardiovascular disease experienced cognitive improvement, whereas 17.5% had cognitive decline. Those with MCI or cognitive impairment at admission, as well as younger patients, were associated with improved cognitive function during hospitalization.
Prior longitudinal studies assessing MMSE in outpatient populations indicated a decline of -0.9 points over one year [28] and -0.2 points over 1.5 years in community-dwelling older adults [29]. Cooley et al. reported a -0.9-point decline in MoCA scores over one year in a longitudinal study [30]. Studies conducted in Japan targeting older adults reported that 30% experienced a decrease of ≥2 points in MoCA-J scores, whereas 30% showed an improvement over one year [22]. In contrast, in the present study, those with cognitive decline at admission were likelier to have improved cognitive function at discharge.
Cerebral blood flow improves with treatment in patients with cardiovascular disease [11,12], and studies on healthy individuals have indicated improved cognitive function with increased cerebral blood flow [13–15]. Based on prior studies on community-dwelling individuals, it can be inferred that patients with cardiovascular disease exhibit improved cognitive function more efficiently. This may be due to correcting a temporary decrease in cerebral blood flow caused by cardiac disease through treatment, resulting in improved cognitive function. However, this study did not evaluate cerebral blood flow and other factors, which presents a future research opportunity.
In our study, 17.5% of patients experienced a decline in cognitive function during hospitalization. Older adults in the hospital have a high prevalence of delirium and depressive symptoms [9], with a 2.4 times greater likelihood of cognitive decline [31]. Older patients with cardiovascular disease often have lower ADL capabilities at admission and lower activity levels in the ward [32], making them more susceptible to the effects of bed rest during hospitalization. Furthermore, patients with cardiovascular disease may experience reduced physical activity due to intravenous treatment [33]. The association between physical activity and cognitive function has been revealed in numerous studies [34,35], and it is plausible that the decline in cognitive function observed in our study was influenced by bed rest during hospitalization. This study has a small sample size and limited variables due to its retrospective nature. Therefore, future prospective studies are needed to examine in detail the factors related to changes in cognitive function.
Considering the results of this study, a certain number of patients with cardiovascular disease will experience cognitive decline during hospitalization, making screening tests for cognitive function important. Interventions that maintain or improve cognitive function should then be considered. Targeted interventions for these individuals could contribute to improved cognitive function, prevention of rehospitalization, and better life prognosis. However, it is essential to note that older patients with cardiovascular disease require individualized focus, and guidelines emphasize the importance of providing comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation interventions tailored to each patient [6]. Individualized assessments, especially risk assessments for cognitive function changes during hospitalization, and interventions by specialized teams are crucial.
The strength of this study is that it reveals previously unknown changes in cognitive function during hospitalization, which is essential for long-term prognosis and disease management in patients with cardiac disease. However, this study has several limitations, including its small sample size and single-center setting. Future large-scale multicenter cohort studies are necessary to elucidate the factors related to cognitive function changes during hospitalization in patients with cardiovascular diseases. We performed a multivariate analysis, but overfitting problems limited the number of independent variables. Future studies should use large data sets and conduct detailed analyses using multivariate and subgroup analyses. In such studies, investigating additional factors related to cognitive function, such as physical activity, quality of life, education level, delirium, and depressive symptoms, is essential. Furthermore, the high dropout rate in our study suggests the possibility of sampling bias. The patients analyzed in this study may represent a more severe subset of patients with cardiovascular disease, as those who dropped out had fewer complications and were discharged earlier. Efforts to evaluate the factors contributing to dropout and establish measures to minimize dropout are needed. Therefore, high-quality prospective studies are required in the future. Additionally, the data in our study are limited to the hospitalization period, and the post-discharge course is unknown. Because changes in cognitive function during hospitalization could be temporary, further detailed investigations are required to determine whether cognitive decline during hospitalization is associated with cognitive decline, the onset of dementia or MCI after discharge, as well as with life prognosis, rehospitalization, and functional prognosis. Finally, this study did not consider the effects of treatment during hospitalization. Future studies should include a more detailed examination of treatment and the resulting changes in cardiac function.
Conclusions
On admission, 41.3% of patients with cardiovascular disease exhibited cognitive impairment, and 40.2% had MCI. Cognitive decline occurred in 17.5% of the patients during hospitalization, whereas cognitive improvement occurred in 46.6%. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing cognitive changes in hospitalized patients with cardiovascular disease. Future studies are needed to identify factors associated with changes in cognitive function.
Acknowledgments
We express our gratitude to Dr. Masafumi Kasao, Dr. Tadayuki Kadohira, Dr. Mitsunobu Kaneko, Dr. Yuugo Nara, Nurse Airi Shimoda, Nurse Yuka Yamazaki, Nurse Rikako Endo, Nurse Saori Yoshida, and the Rehabilitation Department staff for their valuable cooperation and support in conducting this research.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up, Japan (JP23K19916). The funding sources did not support the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Kaneko H, Itoh H, Yotsumoto H, Kiriyama H, Kamon T, Fujiu K, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Super-Elderly Patients (Aged ≥90 Years) Hospitalized for Heart Failure- Analysis of a Nationwide Inpatient Database. Circ Rep. 2020;2(8):393–9. Epub 2021/03/12. doi: 10.1253/circrep.CR-20-0053 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7819647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yamamoto S, Yamasaki S, Higuchi S, Kamiya K, Saito H, Saito K, et al. Prevalence and prognostic impact of cognitive frailty in elderly patients with heart failure: sub-analysis of FRAGILE-HF. ESC Heart Fail. 2022. Epub 2022/02/20. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13844 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kewcharoen J, Prasitlumkum N, Kanitsoraphan C, Charoenpoonsiri N, Angsubhakorn N, Putthapiban P, et al. Cognitive impairment associated with increased mortality rate in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2019;31(4):170–8. Epub 2019/07/20. doi: 10.1016/j.jsha.2019.06.001 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6614112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kewcharoen J, Trongtorsak A, Kanitsoraphan C, Prasitlumkum N, Mekritthikrai R, Techorueangwiwat C, et al. Cognitive impairment and 30-day rehospitalization rate in patients with acute heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Heart J. 2019;71(1):52–9. Epub 2019/04/20. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2018.12.006 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6477121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Alosco ML, Spitznagel MB, Cohen R, Sweet LH, Colbert LH, Josephson R, et al. Reduced cognitive function predicts functional decline in patients with heart failure over 12 months. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014;13(4):304–10. Epub 2013/06/12. doi: 10.1177/1474515113494026 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5002356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tsuji T, Kanamori S, Yamakita M, Sato A, Yokoyama M, Miyaguni Y, et al. Correlates of engaging in sports and exercise volunteering among older adults in Japan. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):3791. Epub 20220308. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07688-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8904821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Song R, Xu H, Dintica CS, Pan KY, Qi X, Buchman AS, et al. Associations Between Cardiovascular Risk, Structural Brain Changes, and Cognitive Decline. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(20):2525–34. Epub 2020/05/23. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.053 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dove A, Marseglia A, Shang Y, Grande G, Vetrano DL, Laukka EJ, et al. Cardiometabolic multimorbidity accelerates cognitive decline and dementia progression. Alzheimers Dement. 2022. Epub 2022/06/17. doi: 10.1002/alz.12708 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Goldberg SE, Whittamore KH, Harwood RH, Bradshaw LE, Gladman JR, Jones RG. The prevalence of mental health problems among older adults admitted as an emergency to a general hospital. Age Ageing. 2012;41(1):80–6. Epub 2011/09/06. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afr106 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3234074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Rudolph JL, Zanin NM, Jones RN, Marcantonio ER, Fong TG, Yang FM, et al. Hospitalization in community-dwelling persons with Alzheimer’s disease: frequency and causes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(8):1542–8. Epub 2010/06/18. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02924.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2955171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Paulson OB, Jarden JO, Godtfredsen J, Vorstrup S. Cerebral blood flow in patients with congestive heart failure treated with captopril. Am J Med. 1984;76(5b):91–5. Epub 1984/05/31. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90892-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rajagopalan B, Raine AE, Cooper R, Ledingham JG. Changes in cerebral blood flow in patients with severe congestive cardiac failure before and after captopril treatment. Am J Med. 1984;76(5b):86–90. Epub 1984/05/31. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90891-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Yanagisawa H, Dan I, Tsuzuki D, Kato M, Okamoto M, Kyutoku Y, et al. Acute moderate exercise elicits increased dorsolateral prefrontal activation and improves cognitive performance with Stroop test. Neuroimage. 2010;50(4):1702–10. Epub 2009/12/17. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Endo K, Matsukawa K, Liang N, Nakatsuka C, Tsuchimochi H, Okamura H, et al. Dynamic exercise improves cognitive function in association with increased prefrontal oxygenation. J Physiol Sci. 2013;63(4):287–98. Epub 2013/05/11. doi: 10.1007/s12576-013-0267-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hyodo K, Dan I, Suwabe K, Kyutoku Y, Yamada Y, Akahori M, et al. Acute moderate exercise enhances compensatory brain activation in older adults. Neurobiol Aging. 2012;33(11):2621–32. Epub 2012/02/04. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.12.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98. Epub 1975/11/01. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fujiwara Y, Suzuki H, Yasunaga M, Sugiyama M, Ijuin M, Sakuma N, et al. Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2010;10(3):225–32. Epub 2010/02/10. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00585.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tsoi KK, Chan JY, Hirai HW, Wong SY, Kwok TC. Cognitive Tests to Detect Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1450–8. Epub 2015/06/09. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2152 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Andrews JS, Desai U, Kirson NY, Zichlin ML, Ball DE, Matthews BR. Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2019;5:354–63. Epub 2019/08/17. doi: 10.1016/j.trci.2019.06.005 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6690415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Baracchini C, Mazzalai F, Gruppo M, Lorenzetti R, Ermani M, Ballotta E. Carotid endarterectomy protects elderly patients from cognitive decline: a prospective study. Surgery. 2012;151(1):99–106. Epub 2011/09/29. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.06.031 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Suzuki H, Kawai H, Hirano H, Yoshida H, Ihara K, Kim H, et al. One-Year Change in the Japanese Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Performance and Related Predictors in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(9):1874–9. Epub 2015/08/28. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13595 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wu CY, Hung SJ, Lin KC, Chen KH, Chen P, Tsay PK. Responsiveness, Minimal Clinically Important Difference, and Validity of the MoCA in Stroke Rehabilitation. Occup Ther Int. 2019;2019:2517658. Epub 2019/05/18. doi: 10.1155/2019/2517658 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6487084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55(4):M221–31. Epub 2000/05/16. doi: 10.1093/gerona/55.4.m221 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, Salive ME, Wallace RB. Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(9):556–61. Epub 1995/03/02. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199503023320902 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):M85–94. Epub 1994/03/01. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bouillanne O, Morineau G, Dupont C, Coulombel I, Vincent JP, Nicolis I, et al. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index: a new index for evaluating at-risk elderly medical patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82(4):777–83. Epub 2005/10/08. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/82.4.777 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ’EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):452–8. Epub 20121203. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.244 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3590441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Howland M, Tatsuoka C, Smyth KA, Sajatovic M. Detecting Change over Time: A Comparison of the SLUMS Examination and the MMSE in Older Adults at Risk for Cognitive Decline. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2016;22(5):413–9. Epub 2016/02/11. doi: 10.1111/cns.12515 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5395300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hensel A, Angermeyer MC, Riedel-Heller SG. Measuring cognitive change in older adults: reliable change indices for the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(12):1298–303. Epub 2007/04/20. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.109074 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2095596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cooley SA, Heaps JM, Bolzenius JD, Salminen LE, Baker LM, Scott SE, et al. Longitudinal Change in Performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults. Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(6):824–35. Epub 2015/09/17. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2015.1087596 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4644436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wilson RS, Hebert LE, Scherr PA, Dong X, Leurgens SE, Evans DA. Cognitive decline after hospitalization in a community population of older persons. Neurology. 2012;78(13):950–6. Epub 2012/03/24. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31824d5894 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3310309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Obata H, Izumi T, Yamashita M, Mitsuma W, Suzuki K, Noto S, et al. Characteristics of Elderly Patients with Heart Failure and Impact on Activities of Daily Living: A Registry Report from Super-Aged Society. J Card Fail. 2021;27(11):1203–13. Epub 2021/05/31. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.05.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ueda K, Kasao M, Shimamura M, Haruta H, Nitta S, Kaneko M, et al. Impact of Oral Treatment on Physical Function in Older Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167933. Epub 2016/12/14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167933 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5154528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Colcombe S, Kramer AF. Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: a meta-analytic study. Psychol Sci. 2003;14(2):125–30. Epub 2003/03/29. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01430 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Massoud F, Belleville S, Bergman H, Kirk J, Chertkow H, Nasreddine Z, et al. Mild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia: Part B, therapy. Alzheimers Dement. 2007;3(4):283–91. Epub 2007/10/01. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.07.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the manuscript.