Why the study?
Predictors for allocating patients after TAVI to geriatric versus cardiac rehabilitation were unknown, and characterization of this patient group was needed.
What are the clinical and functional predictors of allocating advanced age patients to geriatric versus cardiac rehabilitation after TAVI?
What are the clinical and functional predictors of allocating advanced age patients to geriatric versus cardiac rehabilitation after TAVI?
Advanced age patients referred to geriatric versus cardiac rehabilitation after TAVI have distinct clinical and functional profiles, with frailty components like ADL and mobility strongly predicting the rehabilitation pathway.
BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to find predictors of allocating patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to geriatric (GR) or cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and describe this new patient group based on a differentiated characterization. METHODS: From 10/2013 to 07/2015, 344 patients with an elective TAVI were consecutively enrolled in this prospective multicentric cohort study. Before intervention, sociodemographic parameters, echocardiographic data, comorbidities, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), quality of life and frailty (score indexing activities of daily living [ADL], cognition, nutrition and mobility) were documented. Out of these, predictors for assignment to CR or GR after TAVI were identified using a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: After TAVI, 249 patients (80.7 ± 5.1 years, 59.0% female) underwent CR (n = 198) or GR (n = 51). GR patients were older, less physically active and more often had a level of care, peripheral artery disease as well as a lower left ventricular ejection fraction. The groups also varied in 6MWD. Furthermore, individual components of frailty revealed prognostic impact: higher values in instrumental ADL reduced the probability for referral to GR (OR:0.49, p < 0.001), while an impaired mobility was positively associated with referral to GR (OR:3.97, p = 0.046). Clinical parameters like stroke (OR:0.19 of GR, p = 0.038) and the EuroSCORE (OR:1.04 of GR, p = 0.026) were also predictive. CONCLUSION: Advanced age patients after TAVI referred to CR or GR differ in several parameters and seem to be different patient groups with specific needs, e.g. regarding activities of daily living and mobility. Thus, our data prove the eligibility of both CR and GR settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eichler et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: