Cargando…

Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering life expectancy before aortic valve replacement (AVR). We compared the performance of a general mortality index, the Lee index, to a frailty index. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 246 older adults undergoing surgical (SAVR) or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Sandra, Festa, Natalia, Afilalo, Jonathan, Popma, Jeffrey J., Khabbaz, Kamal R., Laham, Roger J., Guibone, Kimberly, Kim, Dae Hyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6998298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32013890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1440-4
_version_ 1783493828854939648
author Shi, Sandra
Festa, Natalia
Afilalo, Jonathan
Popma, Jeffrey J.
Khabbaz, Kamal R.
Laham, Roger J.
Guibone, Kimberly
Kim, Dae Hyun
author_facet Shi, Sandra
Festa, Natalia
Afilalo, Jonathan
Popma, Jeffrey J.
Khabbaz, Kamal R.
Laham, Roger J.
Guibone, Kimberly
Kim, Dae Hyun
author_sort Shi, Sandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering life expectancy before aortic valve replacement (AVR). We compared the performance of a general mortality index, the Lee index, to a frailty index. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 246 older adults undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at a single academic medical center. We compared performance of the Lee index to a deficit accumulation frailty index (FI). Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Lee index or FI with poor outcome, defined as death or functional decline with severe symptoms at 12 months. Discrimination was assessed using C-statistics. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, 44 experienced poor outcome (31 deaths, 13 functional decline with severe symptoms). The risk of poor outcome by Lee index quartiles was 6.8% (reference), 17.9% (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval, [0.9–10.2]), 20.0% (OR 3.4; [1.0–11.4]), and 34.0% (OR 7.1; [2.2–22.6]) (p-for-trend = 0.001). Risk of poor outcome by FI quartiles was 3.6% (reference), 10.3% (OR 3.1; [0.6–15.8]), 25.0% (OR 8.8; [1.9–41.0]), and 37.3% (OR 15.8; [3.5–71.1]) (p-for-trend< 0.001). The Lee index predicted the risk of poor outcome in the SAVR cohort Lee index (quartiles 1–4: 2.1, 4.0, 15.4, and 20.0%; p-for-trend = 0.04), but not in the TAVR cohort (quartiles 1–4: 27.3, 29.0, 21.3, 35.4%; p-for-trend = 0.42). In contrast, the FI did not predict the risk of poor outcome well in the SAVR cohort (quartiles 1–4: 2.3, 4.4, 15.8, and 0%; p-for-trend = 0.24), however in the TAVR cohort (quartiles 1–4: 9.1, 14.3, 29.7, and 40.7%; p-for-trend = 0.004). Compared to the Lee index, an FI demonstrated higher C-statistics in the overall (Lee index versus FI: 0.680 versus 0.735; p = 0.03) and TAVR (0.560 versus 0.644; p = 0.03) cohorts, but not SAVR cohort (0.724 versus 0.766; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While a general mortality index Lee index predicted death or functional decline with severe symptoms at 12 months well among SAVR patients, the FI derived from a multi-domain geriatric assessment better informs risk-stratification for high-risk TAVR patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6998298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69982982020-02-05 Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement Shi, Sandra Festa, Natalia Afilalo, Jonathan Popma, Jeffrey J. Khabbaz, Kamal R. Laham, Roger J. Guibone, Kimberly Kim, Dae Hyun BMC Geriatr Research Article BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering life expectancy before aortic valve replacement (AVR). We compared the performance of a general mortality index, the Lee index, to a frailty index. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 246 older adults undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at a single academic medical center. We compared performance of the Lee index to a deficit accumulation frailty index (FI). Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Lee index or FI with poor outcome, defined as death or functional decline with severe symptoms at 12 months. Discrimination was assessed using C-statistics. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, 44 experienced poor outcome (31 deaths, 13 functional decline with severe symptoms). The risk of poor outcome by Lee index quartiles was 6.8% (reference), 17.9% (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval, [0.9–10.2]), 20.0% (OR 3.4; [1.0–11.4]), and 34.0% (OR 7.1; [2.2–22.6]) (p-for-trend = 0.001). Risk of poor outcome by FI quartiles was 3.6% (reference), 10.3% (OR 3.1; [0.6–15.8]), 25.0% (OR 8.8; [1.9–41.0]), and 37.3% (OR 15.8; [3.5–71.1]) (p-for-trend< 0.001). The Lee index predicted the risk of poor outcome in the SAVR cohort Lee index (quartiles 1–4: 2.1, 4.0, 15.4, and 20.0%; p-for-trend = 0.04), but not in the TAVR cohort (quartiles 1–4: 27.3, 29.0, 21.3, 35.4%; p-for-trend = 0.42). In contrast, the FI did not predict the risk of poor outcome well in the SAVR cohort (quartiles 1–4: 2.3, 4.4, 15.8, and 0%; p-for-trend = 0.24), however in the TAVR cohort (quartiles 1–4: 9.1, 14.3, 29.7, and 40.7%; p-for-trend = 0.004). Compared to the Lee index, an FI demonstrated higher C-statistics in the overall (Lee index versus FI: 0.680 versus 0.735; p = 0.03) and TAVR (0.560 versus 0.644; p = 0.03) cohorts, but not SAVR cohort (0.724 versus 0.766; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While a general mortality index Lee index predicted death or functional decline with severe symptoms at 12 months well among SAVR patients, the FI derived from a multi-domain geriatric assessment better informs risk-stratification for high-risk TAVR patients. BioMed Central 2020-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6998298/ /pubmed/32013890 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1440-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shi, Sandra
Festa, Natalia
Afilalo, Jonathan
Popma, Jeffrey J.
Khabbaz, Kamal R.
Laham, Roger J.
Guibone, Kimberly
Kim, Dae Hyun
Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
title Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
title_full Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
title_fullStr Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
title_full_unstemmed Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
title_short Comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
title_sort comparative utility of frailty to a general prognostic score in identifying patients at risk for poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6998298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32013890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1440-4
work_keys_str_mv AT shisandra comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT festanatalia comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT afilalojonathan comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT popmajeffreyj comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT khabbazkamalr comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT lahamrogerj comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT guibonekimberly comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement
AT kimdaehyun comparativeutilityoffrailtytoageneralprognosticscoreinidentifyingpatientsatriskforpooroutcomesafteraorticvalvereplacement