Yoon Kyung Lee1, Marina Shukman2, Reshma Biniwale3, Abbas Ardehali3, Megan Kamath2, Ali Nsair2, Joanna M Schaenman4, Deena Goldwater2,5. 1. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Frailty status affects outcomes after heart transplantation, but the optimal way to assess frailty prior to transplant remains unknown. METHODS: This single-center, observational study assessed 44 heart transplant candidates for frailty using three methods. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) were used as two physical assessments of frailty. The Frailty Risk Score (FRS) was used as a chart-review based assessment measuring 20 different biopsychosocial and functional components, including biomarkers, depression, cognitive impairment, and sleep. RESULTS: We determined the correlation between FRS, SPPB, and FFP and how each correlated with clinical outcomes. Of 44 participants, mean age was 60 years. FRS correlated with SPPB and FFP (P = .043, P < .001, respectively). Higher frailty as measured by SPPB and FRS was significantly associated with lack of achieving waitlist status (P = .022; P = .002) and not being transplanted (P = .026; P = .008). Higher frailty by SPPB and FFP was also associated with mortality (P = .010; P = .025). CONCLUSION: SPPB and chart-review FRS showed potential for predicting waitlist and transplant status of heart transplant candidates, while SPPB and FFP were associated with mortality. Additional studies may serve to validate these observations.
INTRODUCTION: Frailty status affects outcomes after heart transplantation, but the optimal way to assess frailty prior to transplant remains unknown. METHODS: This single-center, observational study assessed 44 heart transplant candidates for frailty using three methods. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) were used as two physical assessments of frailty. The Frailty Risk Score (FRS) was used as a chart-review based assessment measuring 20 different biopsychosocial and functional components, including biomarkers, depression, cognitive impairment, and sleep. RESULTS: We determined the correlation between FRS, SPPB, and FFP and how each correlated with clinical outcomes. Of 44 participants, mean age was 60 years. FRS correlated with SPPB and FFP (P = .043, P < .001, respectively). Higher frailty as measured by SPPB and FRS was significantly associated with lack of achieving waitlist status (P = .022; P = .002) and not being transplanted (P = .026; P = .008). Higher frailty by SPPB and FFP was also associated with mortality (P = .010; P = .025). CONCLUSION: SPPB and chart-review FRS showed potential for predicting waitlist and transplant status of heart transplant candidates, while SPPB and FFP were associated with mortality. Additional studies may serve to validate these observations.
Authors: Mandeep R Mehra; Charles E Canter; Margaret M Hannan; Marc J Semigran; Patricia A Uber; David A Baran; Lara Danziger-Isakov; James K Kirklin; Richard Kirk; Sudhir S Kushwaha; Lars H Lund; Luciano Potena; Heather J Ross; David O Taylor; Erik A M Verschuuren; Andreas Zuckermann Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Jon Kobashigawa; Darshana Dadhania; Sangeeta Bhorade; Deborah Adey; Joseph Berger; Geetha Bhat; Marie Budev; Andres Duarte-Rojo; Michael Dunn; Shelley Hall; Meera N Harhay; Kirsten L Johansen; Susan Joseph; Cassie C Kennedy; Evan Kransdorf; Krista L Lentine; Raymond J Lynch; Mara McAdams-DeMarco; Shunji Nagai; Michael Olymbios; Jignesh Patel; Sean Pinney; Joanna Schaenman; Dorry L Segev; Palak Shah; Lianne G Singer; Jonathan P Singer; Christopher Sonnenday; Puneeta Tandon; Elliot Tapper; Stefan G Tullius; Michael Wilson; Martin Zamora; Jennifer C Lai Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-12-22 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: J L Vincent; R Moreno; J Takala; S Willatts; A De Mendonça; H Bruining; C K Reinhart; P M Suter; L G Thijs Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sunita R Jha; Malin K Hannu; Sungwon Chang; Elyn Montgomery; Michelle Harkess; Kay Wilhelm; Christopher S Hayward; Andrew Jabbour; Phillip M Spratt; Phillip Newton; Patricia M Davidson; Peter S Macdonald Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Louis M Revenig; Daniel J Canter; Maxwell D Taylor; Caroline Tai; John F Sweeney; Juan M Sarmiento; David A Kooby; Shishir K Maithel; Viraj A Master; Kenneth Ogan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Deborah A Lekan; Debra C Wallace; Thomas P McCoy; Jie Hu; Susan G Silva; Heather E Whitson Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 2.522
Authors: Thomas N Robinson; Ben Eiseman; Jeffrey I Wallace; Skotti D Church; Kim K McFann; Shirley M Pfister; Terra J Sharp; Marc Moss Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 12.969