Andrew H Lutz1, Amanda Delligatti, Kelly Allsup, Jonathan Afilalo, Daniel E Forman. 1. Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (Dr Forman), Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System (Drs Lutz and Forman and Mss Delligatti and Allsup), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Drs Lutz and Forman); Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Dr Afilalo); and University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Forman).
Abstract
PURPOSE: Frailty is highly prevalent among older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is associated with greater than 2-fold risk for morbidity and mortality, independent of age and comorbidities. Many candidates are not referred to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) under the assumption that they are too frail to benefit. We hypothesized that CR is associated with similar benefits for frail adults as for intermediate-frail and nonfrail adults. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of CVD patients who completed a phase II CR program. Patients classified as frail by meeting ≥2 frailty criteria and intermediate-frail by meeting 1 criterion, including 6-min walk distance (6MWD) <300 m, gait speed ≤0.65 m/sec or 0.76 m/sec normalized to height and sex, tandem stand <10 sec, Timed Up & Go (TUG) <15 sec, and weak hand grip strength per Fried criteria. Changes within and between groups were compared before and after completion of CR. RESULTS: We evaluated 243 patients; 75 were classified as frail, 70 as intermediate-frail, and 98 as nonfrail. Each group improved in all measures of frailty except for tandem stand. There were no significant differences in pre- to post-CR measures for 6MWD, gait speed, tandem stand, or hand grip strength between groups. Frail patients showed greater improvement in TUG than the other groups (P = .007). CONCLUSION: Among frail patients, CR was associated with improvements in multiple domains of physical function. Gains achieved by frail adults were similar to or greater than those achieved by intermediate-frail and nonfrail patients. These data provide strong rationale for referring all eligible patients to CR, including frail patients. Those who are most physically impaired may derive gains that have proportionally greater ramifications.
PURPOSE: Frailty is highly prevalent among older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is associated with greater than 2-fold risk for morbidity and mortality, independent of age and comorbidities. Many candidates are not referred to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) under the assumption that they are too frail to benefit. We hypothesized that CR is associated with similar benefits for frail adults as for intermediate-frail and nonfrail adults. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of CVDpatients who completed a phase II CR program. Patients classified as frail by meeting ≥2 frailty criteria and intermediate-frail by meeting 1 criterion, including 6-min walk distance (6MWD) <300 m, gait speed ≤0.65 m/sec or 0.76 m/sec normalized to height and sex, tandem stand <10 sec, Timed Up & Go (TUG) <15 sec, and weak hand grip strength per Fried criteria. Changes within and between groups were compared before and after completion of CR. RESULTS: We evaluated 243 patients; 75 were classified as frail, 70 as intermediate-frail, and 98 as nonfrail. Each group improved in all measures of frailty except for tandem stand. There were no significant differences in pre- to post-CR measures for 6MWD, gait speed, tandem stand, or hand grip strength between groups. Frail patients showed greater improvement in TUG than the other groups (P = .007). CONCLUSION: Among frail patients, CR was associated with improvements in multiple domains of physical function. Gains achieved by frail adults were similar to or greater than those achieved by intermediate-frail and nonfrail patients. These data provide strong rationale for referring all eligible patients to CR, including frail patients. Those who are most physically impaired may derive gains that have proportionally greater ramifications.
Authors: Gianni Mazzoni; Andrea Raisi; Jonathan Myers; Ross Arena; Leonard Kaminsky; Valentina Zerbini; Rosario Lordi; Giorgio Chiaranda; Simona Mandini; Gianluigi Sella; Elisabetta Tonet; Gianluca Campo; Giovanni Grazzi Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: David W Goldstein; Alexandra M Hajduk; Xuemei Song; Sui Tsang; Mary Geda; John A Dodson; Daniel E Forman; Harlan Krumholz; Sarwat I Chaudhry Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Naila Ijaz; Brian Buta; Qian-Li Xue; Denise T Mohess; Archana Bushan; Henry Tran; Wayne Batchelor; Christopher R deFilippi; Jeremy D Walston; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Daniel E Forman; Jon R Resar; Christopher M O'Connor; Gary Gerstenblith; Abdulla A Damluji Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jenna L Taylor; Jose R Medina-Inojosa; Audry Chacin-Suarez; Joshua R Smith; Ray W Squires; Randal J Thomas; Bruce D Johnson; Thomas P Olson; Amanda R Bonikowske Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-14
Authors: Nastasia Marinus; Carlo Vigorito; Francesco Giallauria; Paul Dendale; Raf Meesen; Kevin Bokken; Laura Haenen; Thomas Jansegers; Yenthe Vandenheuvel; Martijn Scherrenberg; Joke Spildooren; Dominique Hansen Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jason L Rengo; Patrick D Savage; Fuyuki Hirashima; Bruce J Leavitt; Philip A Ades; Michael J Toth Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.081