OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Timed Up and Go test and postoperative morbidity and 1-year mortality, and to compare the Timed Up and Go to the standard-of-care surgical risk calculators for prediction of postoperative complications. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients 65 years and older undergoing elective colorectal and cardiac operations with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The Timed Up and Go test was performed preoperatively. This timed test starts with the subject standing from a chair, walking 10 feet, returning to the chair, and ends after the subject sits. Timed Up and Go results were grouped as fast ≤ 10 seconds, intermediate = 11-14 seconds, and slow ≥ 15 seconds. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the 3 Timed Up and Go groups to current standard-of-care surgical risk calculators at forecasting postoperative complications. RESULTS: This study included 272 subjects (mean age of 74 ± 6 years). Slower Timed Up and Go was associated with increased postoperative complications after colorectal (fast 13%, intermediate 29%, and slow 77%; P < 0.001) and cardiac (fast 11%, intermediate 26%, and slow 52%; P < 0.001) operations. Slower Timed Up and Go was associated with increased 1-year mortality following both colorectal (fast 3%, intermediate 10%, and slow 31%; P = 0.006) and cardiac (fast 2%, intermediate 3%, and slow 12%; P = 0.039) operations. Receiver operating characteristic area under curve of the Timed Up and Go and the risk calculators for the colorectal group was 0.775 (95% CI: 0.670-0.880) and 0.554 (95% CI: 0.499-0.609), and for the cardiac group was 0.684 (95% CI: 0.603-0.766) and 0.552 (95% CI: 0.477-0.626). CONCLUSIONS: Slower Timed Up and Go forecasted increased postoperative complications and 1-year mortality across surgical specialties. Regardless of operation performed, the Timed Up and Go compared favorably to the more complex risk calculators at forecasting postoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Timed Up and Go test and postoperative morbidity and 1-year mortality, and to compare the Timed Up and Go to the standard-of-care surgical risk calculators for prediction of postoperative complications. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients 65 years and older undergoing elective colorectal and cardiac operations with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The Timed Up and Go test was performed preoperatively. This timed test starts with the subject standing from a chair, walking 10 feet, returning to the chair, and ends after the subject sits. Timed Up and Go results were grouped as fast ≤ 10 seconds, intermediate = 11-14 seconds, and slow ≥ 15 seconds. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare the 3 Timed Up and Go groups to current standard-of-care surgical risk calculators at forecasting postoperative complications. RESULTS: This study included 272 subjects (mean age of 74 ± 6 years). Slower Timed Up and Go was associated with increased postoperative complications after colorectal (fast 13%, intermediate 29%, and slow 77%; P < 0.001) and cardiac (fast 11%, intermediate 26%, and slow 52%; P < 0.001) operations. Slower Timed Up and Go was associated with increased 1-year mortality following both colorectal (fast 3%, intermediate 10%, and slow 31%; P = 0.006) and cardiac (fast 2%, intermediate 3%, and slow 12%; P = 0.039) operations. Receiver operating characteristic area under curve of the Timed Up and Go and the risk calculators for the colorectal group was 0.775 (95% CI: 0.670-0.880) and 0.554 (95% CI: 0.499-0.609), and for the cardiac group was 0.684 (95% CI: 0.603-0.766) and 0.552 (95% CI: 0.477-0.626). CONCLUSIONS: Slower Timed Up and Go forecasted increased postoperative complications and 1-year mortality across surgical specialties. Regardless of operation performed, the Timed Up and Go compared favorably to the more complex risk calculators at forecasting postoperative complications.
Authors: Margaret Jean Hall; Carol J DeFrances; Sonja N Williams; Aleksandr Golosinskiy; Alexander Schwartzman Journal: Natl Health Stat Report Date: 2010-10-26
Authors: Jonathan Afilalo; Mark J Eisenberg; Jean-François Morin; Howard Bergman; Johanne Monette; Nicolas Noiseux; Louis P Perrault; Karen P Alexander; Yves Langlois; Nandini Dendukuri; Patrick Chamoun; Georges Kasparian; Sophie Robichaud; S Michael Gharacholou; Jean-François Boivin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; S Andrieu; J Bauer; O Beauchet; M Bonnefoy; M Cesari; L M Donini; S Gillette Guyonnet; M Inzitari; F Nourhashemi; G Onder; P Ritz; A Salva; M Visser; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Jayce Pangilinan; Kathryn Quanstrom; Mark Bridge; Louise C Walter; Emily Finlayson; Anne M Suskind Journal: Urology Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sharon K Inouye; Edward R Marcantonio; Zara Cooper; Selwyn O Rogers; Long Ngo; Jamey Guess; Eva Schmitt; Richard N Jones; Douglas K Ayres; Jeremy D Walston; Thomas M Gill; Lauren J Gleason Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Simon J G Richards; Frank A Frizelle; John A Geddes; Tim W Eglinton; Mark B Hampton Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Kathryn Quanstrom; Shoujun Zhao; Mark Bridge; Louise C Walter; John Neuhaus; Emily Finlayson Journal: Urology Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jacqueline M Kruser; Michael J Nabozny; Nicole M Steffens; Karen J Brasel; Toby C Campbell; Martha E Gaines; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 5.562