Cardiorespiratory fitness in bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
Bipolar disorder impacts approximately 2.4% of individuals throughout their lives and is linked to increased mortality, diminishing life expectancy by around a decade. Cardiovascular disease constitutes nearly one-third of fatalities within this demographic. Prior meta-analyses have indicated that cardiovascular mortality in individuals with bipolar disorder is approximately double that of the general populace, yet they regarded cardiovascular disease as a singular entity. In the broader populace, mortality rates vary significantly among cardiovascular etiologies, ischemic heart disease is responsible for over 9 million fatalities annually, and stroke accounts for approximately 6 million, whereas hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, aortic aneurysm, and peripheral arterial disease contribute to varying extents. The uniformity of excess mortality in bipolar disorder across various causes, as well as any differences between genders, remains unverified. Systematic evaluations concerning cause-specific cardiovascular mortality in bipolar disorder are infrequent. What is the extent of mortality from cardiovascular disease among individuals with bipolar disorder, both in total and by specific cardiovascular causes, compared to the general population? Is there a disparity in excess cardiovascular mortality rates between males and females? Does the extent of the surplus correlate with the temporal span of the investigation, the geographical locale, or the category of effect metric presented? How resilient are the aggregated estimates to the omission of specific studies and the overlap among national registry cohorts? We anticipated that cardiovascular mortality in individuals with bipolar disorder would exceed that of the general populace across various etiologies, with the degree of difference fluctuating among the causes. No directional hypothesis was established for the comparison of men and women; the sex-stratified analysis was predetermined as an inquiry rather than a directional forecast. No predetermined numerical limit was established for what would be considered a clinically significant surplus.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.