Why the study?
Guidelines recommend frailty assessment before TAVI, but there is no consensus on how to assess it.
Does higher frailty status assessed by the Edmonton Frail Scale predict longer length of stay and higher mortality in patients undergoing TAVI?
Does higher frailty status assessed by the Edmonton Frail Scale predict longer length of stay and higher mortality in patients undergoing TAVI?
The Edmonton Frail Scale is a useful pre-procedural tool to stratify risk for prolonged hospital stay and long-term mortality in patients undergoing TAVI.
BACKGROUND: International guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease recommend frailty assessment prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI), however there is no consensus how to assess frailty. We investigated whether frailty status assessed with the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS, range 0-17 points) relates to length of stay (LOS), short- and long-term mortality and adverse outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: In this study we included 357 patients between April 2016 till December 2018. EFS was assessed at baseline. Patients were classified into low (0-3), intermediate (4-7) or high frailty status (8-17). LOS was defined as the number of days between admission and discharge. Mortality data were obtained up to four years after TAVI. Adverse events were defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and collected <30 days after TAVI. RESULTS: Patients with higher frailty status had longer median LOS (days (IQR): low 5 (3), intermediate 6 (4) and high 7 (5), p < 0.001) and higher mortality: low vs intermediate vs high at 30 days 0.5%, 2.2%, 7.0% (p = 0.050), 1 year 3.7%, 10.0%, 15.2% (p = 0.052), 2 years 9.2%, 17.8%, 31.7% (p = 0.003), 3 years 17.2%, 24.0, 47.0% (p = 0.001) and 4 years 19.6%, 30.8%, 55.6% (p < 0.001). Frail patients received more often a pacemaker (2.6%, 6.6%, 13.5%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the EFS is a useful tool to screen for frailty in TAVI patients. This tool may possibly be expanded to determine benefit versus harm-risk in these patients and whether specific pre-procedurally interventions are needed in order to reduce mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holierook et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: