Quinn P Hosler1, Anthony J Maltagliati2, Sandra M Shi3, Jonathan Afilalo4, Jeffrey J Popma5, Kamal R Khabbaz6, Roger J Laham5, Kimberly Guibone5, Dae Hyun Kim3,7. 1. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. 3. Division of Gerontology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Cardiology and Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Nicolas Dumonteil; Alaide Chieffo; Yann Roux; Robert M A van der Boon; Gennaro Giustino; Eline Hartman; Yaar Aga; Louis de Jong; Moussa Abi Ghanem; Bertrand Marcheix; Caterina Cavazza; Didier Carrié; Antonio Colombo; Arie-Pieter Kappetein; Peter P T de Jaegere; Didier Tchetche Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Lewis A Lipsitz; Kenneth Rockwood; Ajinkya Pawar; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: M Lilamand; N Dumonteil; F Nourhashémi; O Hanon; B Marcheix; O Toulza; S Elmalem; G Abellan van Kan; A Raynaud-Simon; B Vellas; J Afilalo; M Cesari Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Sahil Khera; Dhaval Kolte; Tanush Gupta; Andrew Goldsweig; Poonam Velagapudi; Ankur Kalra; Gilbert H L Tang; Wilbert S Aronow; Gregg C Fonarow; Deepak L Bhatt; Herbert D Aronow; Neal S Kleiman; Michael Reardon; Paul C Gordon; Barry Sharaf; J Dawn Abbott Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Xiaowei Song; Chris MacKnight; Howard Bergman; David B Hogan; Ian McDowell; Arnold Mitnitski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Susan K Ewing; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Peggy M Cawthon; Katie L Stone; Teresa A Hillier; Jane A Cauley; Marc C Hochberg; Nicolas Rodondi; J Kathleen Tracy; Steven R Cummings Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-02-25
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Caroline A Kim; Sebastian Placide; Lewis A Lipsitz; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 25.391