Key result
Incident stroke in older AF patients linked to ~32% lower likelihood of ADL independence.
Why the study?
Older adults with AF have multiple risk factors for disablement, but long-term function and the contribution of strokes to disability had not been characterized.
Does incident stroke account for the majority of long-term functional decline and disability in older adults with atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=3,530)
Does incident stroke account for the majority of long-term functional decline and disability in older adults with atrial fibrillation?
While stroke causes a dramatic and immediate decline in function for older adults with atrial fibrillation, the vast majority of population-level disability is driven by a high background rate of functional loss independent of stroke.
Stroke markedly raises individual ADL dependence risk in older AF adults but explains little population disability; leaves open dominant role of background decline.
BACKGROUND: Older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) have multiple risk factors for disablement. Long-term function and the contribution of strokes to disability has not been previously characterized. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal, observational study in the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (1992-2014). We included participants ≥65 years with Medicare claims who met incident AF diagnosis claims criteria. We examined the association of incident stroke with three functional outcomes: independence with activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and community-dwelling. We fit separate logistic regression models with repeated measures adjusting for comorbidities and demographics to estimate the effect of stroke on function. We estimate the contribution of strokes to the overall population burden of functional impairment using the method of recycled predictions. RESULTS: Among 3530 participants (median age 79 years, 53% women, median CHA2DS2-VASc 5), 262 had a stroke over 17,396 person-years. Independent of stroke and accounting for population comorbidities, annually, ADL dependence increased by 4.4%, IADL dependence increased by 3.9%, and nursing home residence increased by 1.2% (p<0.05 for all). Accounting for comorbidities, of those who experienced a stroke, 31.9% developed new ADL dependence, 26.5% developed new IADL dependence, and 8.6% newly moved to a nursing home (p<0.05 for all). Considering all causes of function loss, 1.7% of ADL disability-years, 1.2% of IADL disability-years, and 7.3% of nursing home years could be attributed to stroke over 7.4years. CONCLUSION: Older adults lose substantial function over time following AF diagnosis, independent of stroke. Stroke was associated with a significant decline in function and an increase in the likelihood of nursing home move, but stroke did not accelerate subsequent disability accrual. Because of the high background rate of functional loss, stroke was not the dominant determinant of population-level disability in older adults with AF. IMPACT STATEMENT: We certify that this work is novel. Little is known about long-term function (ADL, IADL, community-dwelling) among older adults with AF and the association with stroke. This nationally representative study finds a high rate of function loss independent of stroke, and among those who suffer a stroke, a dramatic and immediate decline in function. Because of the high rate of function loss independent of stroke and the relatively low rate of stroke, on a population level, stroke is not the dominant determinant of disability in older adults with AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parks et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=3,530). Incident stroke vs. No stroke (pre-stroke baseline) was evaluated on ADL independence (AME -32%, 95% CI -39 to -25, p=<0.05). Incident stroke in older adults with atrial fibrillation reduced the predicted likelihood of ADL independence by 32%, though it accounted for only 1.7% of total ADL disability-years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: