| Literature DB >> 34263257 |
Margaret Ellenora Wiggins1,2, Catherine Dion1,2, Erin Formanski1,2, Anis Davoudi3, Shawna Amini4,2, Kenneth M Heilman5, Dana Penney6, Randall Davis7, Cynthia W Garvan4,2, George J Arnaoutakis8, Patrick Tighe4,2, David J Libon9, Catherine C Price1,4,2.
Abstract
AIMS: Reduced pre-operative cognitive functioning in older adults is a risk factor for postoperative complications, but it is unknown if preoperative digitally-acquired clock drawing test (CDT) cognitive screening variables, which allow for more nuanced examination of patient performance, may predict lengthier hospital stay and greater cost of hospital care. This issue is particularly relevant for older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), as this surgical procedure is chosen for intermediate-risk older adults needing aortic replacement. This proof of concept research explored if specific latency and graphomotor variables indicative of planning from digitally-acquired command and copy clock drawing would predict post-TAVR duration and cost of hospitalization, over and above age, education, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification score, and frailty.Entities:
Keywords: Clock drawing test; hospital outcomes; perioperative neuropsychology; transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Year: 2021 PMID: 34263257 PMCID: PMC8276939 DOI: 10.37349/emed.2021.00036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Explor Med ISSN: 2692-3106
Results from hierarchical regressions demonstrating cognitive performance via individual command and copy digitally-acquired clock drawing test predictors of length of stay and cost of care
| Outcome variable | Clock variable | Standardized beta | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length of stay | Command | |||
| Total time to completion (seconds) | 0.24 | 2.6 | 0.011 | |
| Ideal digit placement difference (degrees) | 0.12 | −0.13 | 0.901 | |
| Hour hand distance from center (millimeters) | −0.03 | −0.27 | 0.787 | |
| Copy | ||||
| Total time to completion (seconds) | 0.23 | 2.49 | 0.014 | |
| Ideal digit placement difference (degrees) | 0.17 | 1.93 | 0.057 | |
| Hour hand distance from center (millimeters) | 0.22 | 2.57 | 0.011 | |
| Cost of care | Command | |||
| Time to completion (seconds) | 0.18 | 1.94 | 0.055 | |
| Ideal digit placement difference (degrees) | −0.06 | −0.6 | 0.548 | |
| Hour hand distance from center (millimeters) | −0.02 | 0.19 | 0.852 | |
| Copy | ||||
| Time to completion (seconds) | 0.27 | 2.78 | 0.006 | |
| Ideal digit placement difference (degrees) | 0.16 | 1.72 | 0.088 | |
| Hour hand distance from center (millimeters) | 0.18 | 1.95 | 0.054 |
t: t-value; Sig.: significance (P-value)
Figure 1.Participant copy condition clock drawing demonstrating hour hand distance from center and ideal digit placement difference. (A) Model clock presented to participants in the CDT copy condition; (B) drawing of a copy condition clock by a participant with longer-than-average length of stay (103.73 h) and cost of care ($ 211,159.88); (C) representation of hour hand distance from center and ideal digit placement difference for the participant’s clock. Red: circle of best fit; Green and dark blue: axes to identify center of circle; Purple: hour hand distance from center; Light blue: region for placement of each digit; Orange: distance of each digit from the ideal placement