当前位置:首页 / 老年急性冠状动脉综合征患者PCI术后衰弱的发展轨迹及其影响因素
论著·临床研究 | 更新时间:2026-07-13
|
老年急性冠状动脉综合征患者PCI术后衰弱的发展轨迹及其影响因素
Development trajectory of frailty in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome after PCI and its influencing factors

广西医学 页码:819-825

作者机构:王珍,硕士,主管护师,研究方向为心血管疾病临床护理。

基金信息:国家自然科学基金(82100477);陕西省重点研发计划项目(2022SF⁃122)

DOI:10.11675/j.issn.0253⁃4304.2026.06.08

  • 中文简介
  • 英文简介
  • 参考文献

目的 探讨老年急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)术后衰弱的发展轨迹及其影响因素。方法 采用便利抽样法,选取234例老年ACS患者作为研究对象。采用自编的一般资料调查表收集患者的基线资料,采用Tilburg衰弱评估指标(TFI)量表、Barthel指数、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)、社会支持评定量表(SSRS)和5条目老年抑郁量表(GDS⁃5)调查老年ACS患者PCI术后1 d、术后6个月和术后12个月的衰弱、日常生活能力、睡眠质量、社会支持及抑郁情况。采用潜类别增长模型(LCGM)拟合老年ACS患者PCI术后衰弱发展轨迹,采用多因素Logistic回归模型分析衰弱发展轨迹的影响因素。结果 老年ACS患者PCI术后衰弱发展轨迹共呈现3个潜在类别,分别为非衰弱缓慢下降组(42.7%)、低衰弱平稳维持组(20.9%)和高衰弱缓慢加重组(36.4%)。3组患者在年龄、性别、文化程度、Barthel指数得分、PSQI评分、SSRS评分及GDS⁃5评分方面比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,年龄>70岁、PSQI评分增高和GDS⁃5评分增高为老年ACS患者PCI术后衰弱发展的危险因素,Barthel指数得分增高和SSRS评分增高为保护因素(P<0.05)。结论 老年ACS患者PCI术后衰弱发展具有明显异质性,且衰弱发展轨迹受年龄、日常生活能力、睡眠质量、社会支持及抑郁症状的影响。临床实践中应重视高风险患者的早期识别,并实施针对性干预。

Objective To explore the frailty development trajectory and its influencing factors in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods Using a convenience sampling method, 234 elderly ACS patients were enrolled as the research subjects. Baseline data were collected using a self⁃designed general information questionnaire. Frailty, activities of daily living, sleep quality, social support, and depression were assessed at 1 day, 6 months, and 12 months post‑PCI using the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) scale, Barthel index, Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS), and 5‑Item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS‑5). Latent class growth modeling (LCGM) was applied to fit the frailty development trajectory of elderly patients with ACS after PCI, and multivariate Logistic regression model was used to identify factors influencing frailty development trajectory. Results Three potential categories of frailty development trajectories in elderly ACS patients after PCI were identified as follows: non‑frailty slow‑decline group (42.7%), a low‑frailty stable‑maintenance group (20.9%), or high‑frailty slow‑worsening group (36.4%). Statistically significant differences were observed in age, sex, educational level, Barthel index score, PSQI score, SSRS score, and GDS‑5 score between the three groups (P<0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis results revealed that age >70 years, elevated PSQI score and elevated GDS‑5 score were risk factors for frailty development of elderly ACS patients after PCI, while elevated Barthel index score and elevated SSRS score were protective factors (P<0.05). Conclusion Frailty development after PCI in elderly ACS patients exhibits marked heterogeneity and is influenced by age, activities of daily living, sleep quality, social support, and depressive symptoms. Early identification of high‑risk patients and targeted interventions should be emphasized in clinical practice.  

24

浏览量

1

下载量

0

CSCD

工具集