Anne M Suskind1, Kathryn Quanstrom2, Shoujun Zhao2, Mark Bridge2, Louise C Walter3, John Neuhaus4, Emily Finlayson5. 1. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: Anne.Suskind@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 3. Division of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco, CA; Division of Geriatrics, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the relationship between age, frailty, and overactive bladder (OAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of individuals age ≥65 years presenting to an academic urology practice between December 2015 and July 2016. All patients had a Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), a parsimonious measure of frailty, on intake, and were thereby categorized as fast (≤10 seconds), intermediate (11-14 seconds), and slow (≥15 seconds). The TUGT and other clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record using direct queries. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between frailty and the diagnosis of OAB, adjusting for age, gender, and race. RESULTS: Our cohort included 201 individuals with and 1162 individuals without OAB. Individuals with OAB had slower TUGTs (13.7 ± 7.9 seconds) than their non-OAB counterparts (10.9 ± 5.2 seconds), P <.0001, with 32.3% and 11.0% of OAB and non-OAB individuals being categorized as slow, or frail. In multivariable analysis, slower TUGT was a significant predictor of OAB (adjusted odds ratio: 3.0; 95% confidence interval: 2.0-4.8). Age was not independently associated with this diagnosis (P values >.05 for each age group). CONCLUSION: Patients with OAB are statistically significantly frailer than individuals seeking care for other non-oncologic urologic diagnoses. Frailty, when adjusted for age, race, and gender, is a statistically significant predictor of OAB. Furthermore, frailty should be considered when caring for older patients with OAB, and OAB should be assessed when caring for frail older patients.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the relationship between age, frailty, and overactive bladder (OAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of individuals age ≥65 years presenting to an academic urology practice between December 2015 and July 2016. All patients had a Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), a parsimonious measure of frailty, on intake, and were thereby categorized as fast (≤10 seconds), intermediate (11-14 seconds), and slow (≥15 seconds). The TUGT and other clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record using direct queries. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between frailty and the diagnosis of OAB, adjusting for age, gender, and race. RESULTS: Our cohort included 201 individuals with and 1162 individuals without OAB. Individuals with OAB had slower TUGTs (13.7 ± 7.9 seconds) than their non-OAB counterparts (10.9 ± 5.2 seconds), P <.0001, with 32.3% and 11.0% of OAB and non-OAB individuals being categorized as slow, or frail. In multivariable analysis, slower TUGT was a significant predictor of OAB (adjusted odds ratio: 3.0; 95% confidence interval: 2.0-4.8). Age was not independently associated with this diagnosis (P values >.05 for each age group). CONCLUSION:Patients with OAB are statistically significantly frailer than individuals seeking care for other non-oncologic urologic diagnoses. Frailty, when adjusted for age, race, and gender, is a statistically significant predictor of OAB. Furthermore, frailty should be considered when caring for older patients with OAB, and OAB should be assessed when caring for frail older patients.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Howard Bergman; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik; David B Hogan; Silvia Hummel; Sathya Karunananthan; Christina Wolfson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: M Yoshida; Y Homma; A Inadome; M Yono; H Seshita; Y Miyamoto; S Murakami; K Kawabe; S Ueda Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.032
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: W F Stewart; J B Van Rooyen; G W Cundiff; P Abrams; A R Herzog; R Corey; T L Hunt; A J Wein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michael L Ganz; Amy M Smalarz; Tracey L Krupski; Jennifer T Anger; Jim C Hu; Kim U Wittrup-Jensen; Chris L Pashos Journal: Urology Date: 2009-12-29 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: S Ida; R Kaneko; H Nagata; Y Noguchi; Y Araki; M Nakai; S Ito; K Imataka; K Murata Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Samuel L Washington; Sima P Porten; Kathryn Quanstrom; Chengshi Jin; Mark Bridge; Emily Finlayson; Louise C Walter; Anne M Suskind Journal: Urology Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Scott R Bauer; Rebecca Scherzer; Anne M Suskind; Peggy Cawthon; Kristine E Ensrud; William A Ricke; Kenneth Covinsky; Lynn M Marshall Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 5.562