共 50 条
A Practical Two-Stage Frailty Assessment for Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement
被引:27
|作者:
Hosler, Quinn P.
[1
]
Maltagliati, Anthony J.
[2
]
Shi, Sandra M.
[3
]
Afilalo, Jonathan
[4
,5
]
Popma, Jeffrey J.
[6
]
Khabbaz, Kamal R.
[7
]
Laham, Roger J.
[6
]
Guibone, Kimberly
[6
]
Kim, Dae Hyun
[3
,8
]
机构:
[1] Univ Cincinnati, Coll Med, Cincinnati, OH USA
[2] Univ Arizona, Coll Med, Tucson, AZ USA
[3] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Div Gerontol, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[4] McGill Univ, Jewish Gen Hosp, Div Cardiol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[5] McGill Univ, Jewish Gen Hosp, Ctr Clin Epidemiol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[6] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Div Cardiol, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[7] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Cardiac Surg, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[8] Hebrew SeniorLife, Marcus Inst Aging Res, Boston, MA USA
关键词:
preoperative evaluation;
frailty;
aortic valve replacement;
functional status;
COMPREHENSIVE GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT;
GAIT SPEED;
OUTCOMES;
ASSOCIATION;
DISABILITY;
PREDICTION;
MORTALITY;
IMPROVE;
PEOPLE;
INDEX;
D O I:
10.1111/jgs.16036
中图分类号:
R592 [老年病学];
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号:
03 ;
0303 ;
100203 ;
摘要:
Objectives Despite evidence, frailty is not routinely assessed before cardiac surgery. We compared five brief frailty tests for predicting poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement and evaluated a strategy of performing comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in screen-positive patients. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting A single academic center. Participants Patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 91; mean age = 77.8 y) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 137; mean age = 84.5 y) from February 2014 to June 2017. Measurements Brief frailty tests (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight [FRAIL] scale; Clinical Frailty Scale; grip strength; gait speed; and chair rise) and a deficit-accumulation frailty index based on CGA (CGA-FI) were measured at baseline. A composite of death or functional decline and severe symptoms at 6 months was assessed. Results The outcome occurred in 8.8% (n = 8) after SAVR and 24.8% (n = 34) after TAVR. The chair rise test showed the highest discrimination in the SAVR (C statistic = .76) and TAVR cohorts (C statistic = .63). When the chair rise test was chosen as a screening test (>= 17 s for SAVR and >= 23 s for TAVR), the incidence of outcome for screen-negative patients, screen-positive patients with CGA-FI of .34 or lower, and screen-positive patients with CGA-FI higher than .34 were 1.9% (n = 1/54), 5.3% (n = 1/19), and 33.3% (n = 6/18) after SAVR, respectively, and 15.0% (n = 9/60), 14.3% (n = 3/21), and 38.3% (n = 22/56) after TAVR, respectively. Compared with routinely performing CGA, targeting CGA to screen-positive patients would result in 54 fewer CGAs, without compromising sensitivity (routine vs targeted: .75 vs .75; P = 1.00) and specificity (.84 vs .86; P = 1.00) in the SAVR cohort; and 60 fewer CGAs with lower sensitivity (.82 vs.65; P = .03) and higher specificity (.50 vs .67; P < .01) in the TAVR cohort. Conclusions The chair rise test with targeted CGA may be a practical strategy to identify older patients at high risk for mortality and poor recovery after SAVR and TAVR in whom individualized care management should be considered. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2031-2037, 2019
引用
收藏
页码:2031 / 2037
页数:7
相关论文