Key result
Chair rise test-guided geriatric assessment maintains sensitivity in SAVR but lowers it ~21% in TAVR.
Why the study?
Frailty is not routinely assessed before cardiac surgery despite evidence supporting its predictive value for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement.
Does a two-stage frailty assessment using the chair rise test and targeted comprehensive geriatric assessment accurately predict poor outcomes in older adults undergoing SAVR or TAVR?
Cohort (n=228)
No
Does a two-stage frailty assessment using the chair rise test and targeted comprehensive geriatric assessment accurately predict poor outcomes in older adults undergoing SAVR or TAVR?
A two-stage frailty assessment using the chair rise test followed by targeted comprehensive geriatric assessment is a practical strategy to identify older patients at high risk for poor outcomes after SAVR and TAVR.
OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence, frailty is not routinely assessed before cardiac surgery. We compared five brief frailty tests for predicting poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement and evaluated a strategy of performing comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in screen-positive patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A single academic center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 91; mean age = 77.8 y) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 137; mean age = 84.5 y) from February 2014 to June 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Brief frailty tests (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight [FRAIL] scale; Clinical Frailty Scale; grip strength; gait speed; and chair rise) and a deficit-accumulation frailty index based on CGA (CGA-FI) were measured at baseline. A composite of death or functional decline and severe symptoms at 6 months was assessed. RESULTS: The outcome occurred in 8.8% (n = 8) after SAVR and 24.8% (n = 34) after TAVR. The chair rise test showed the highest discrimination in the SAVR (C statistic = .76) and TAVR cohorts (C statistic = .63). When the chair rise test was chosen as a screening test (≥17 s for SAVR and ≥23 s for TAVR), the incidence of outcome for screen-negative patients, screen-positive patients with CGA-FI of .34 or lower, and screen-positive patients with CGA-FI higher than .34 were 1.9% (n = 1/54), 5.3% (n = 1/19), and 33.3% (n = 6/18) after SAVR, respectively, and 15.0% (n = 9/60), 14.3% (n = 3/21), and 38.3% (n = 22/56) after TAVR, respectively. Compared with routinely performing CGA, targeting CGA to screen-positive patients would result in 54 fewer CGAs, without compromising sensitivity (routine vs targeted: .75 vs .75; P = 1.00) and specificity (.84 vs .86; P = 1.00) in the SAVR cohort; and 60 fewer CGAs with lower sensitivity (.82 vs.65; P = .03) and higher specificity (.50 vs .67; P < .01) in the TAVR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The chair rise test with targeted CGA may be a practical strategy to identify older patients at high risk for mortality and poor recovery after SAVR and TAVR in whom individualized care management should be considered. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2031-2037, 2019.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hosler et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=228). Targeted comprehensive geriatric assessment using chair rise test vs. Routine comprehensive geriatric assessment was evaluated on Composite of death or functional decline and severe symptoms at 6 months. Targeting comprehensive geriatric assessment to patients screening positive on the chair rise test maintained sensitivity in SAVR (0.75 vs 0.75; P=1.00) but lowered it in TAVR (0.65 vs 0.82; P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: