Susan S Xie1, Carly M Goldstein2, Emily C Gathright3, John Gunstad3, Mary A Dolansky4, Joseph Redle5, Joel W Hughes6. 1. Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: susan.xie@bcm.edu. 2. Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA; Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02903, USA. 3. Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA. 4. Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. 5. Summa Health System, Akron, OH 44304, USA. 6. Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA; Summa Health System, Akron, OH 44304, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate capacity of the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) to detect cognitive impairment (CI) in heart failure (HF) patients. BACKGROUND: CI is a key prognostic marker in HF. Though the most widely used cognitive screen in HF, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is insufficiently sensitive. The ANAM has demonstrated sensitivity to cognitive domains affected by HF, but has not been assessed in this population. METHODS: Investigators administered the ANAM and MMSE to 57 HF patients, compared against a composite model of cognitive function. RESULTS: ANAM efficiency (p < .05) and accuracy scores (p < .001) successfully differentiated CI and non-CI. ANAM efficiency and accuracy scores classified 97.7% and 93.0% of non-CI patients, and 14.3% and 21.4% with CI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ANAM is more effective than the MMSE for detecting CI, but further research is needed to develop a more optimal cognitive screen for routine use in HF patients.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate capacity of the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) to detect cognitive impairment (CI) in heart failure (HF) patients. BACKGROUND: CI is a key prognostic marker in HF. Though the most widely used cognitive screen in HF, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is insufficiently sensitive. The ANAM has demonstrated sensitivity to cognitive domains affected by HF, but has not been assessed in this population. METHODS: Investigators administered the ANAM and MMSE to 57 HF patients, compared against a composite model of cognitive function. RESULTS: ANAM efficiency (p < .05) and accuracy scores (p < .001) successfully differentiated CI and non-CI. ANAM efficiency and accuracy scores classified 97.7% and 93.0% of non-CI patients, and 14.3% and 21.4% with CI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ANAM is more effective than the MMSE for detecting CI, but further research is needed to develop a more optimal cognitive screen for routine use in HF patients.
Authors: Gerald L Gamache; Daniel M Levinson; Dennis L Reeves; Peter I Bidyuk; Kimberly K Brantley Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: G M S Nys; M J E van Zandvoort; P L M de Kort; B P W Jansen; L J Kappelle; E H F de Haan Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: I Appollonio; M Leone; V Isella; F Piamarta; T Consoli; M L Villa; E Forapani; A Russo; P Nichelli Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Marc A Antonchak; Mahnaz Saoudian; Amber R Khan; Hermine I Brunner; Michael E Luggen Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Raymond L C Vogels; Joukje M Oosterman; Barbera van Harten; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier; Jutta M Schroeder-Tanka; Henry C Weinstein Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-08-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Rafael M Fernandes; Marcio G Correa; Marcio A R Dos Santos; Anna P C P S C Almeida; Nathália C F Fagundes; Lucianne C Maia; Rafael R Lima Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 4.566