Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew Senior Life, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Feb 3;20(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-1440-4.
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.
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.
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).
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.
目前的指南建议在主动脉瓣置换 (AVR) 前考虑预期寿命。我们比较了一般死亡率指数 Lee 指数和衰弱指数的表现。
我们对在一家学术医疗中心接受外科 (SAVR) 或经导管主动脉瓣置换 (TAVR) 的 246 名老年患者进行了前瞻性队列研究。我们比较了 Lee 指数和缺陷积累衰弱指数 (FI) 的性能。使用逻辑回归评估 Lee 指数或 FI 与不良结局(定义为 12 个月时死亡或功能下降伴严重症状)的关联。使用 C 统计量评估判别能力。
在整个队列中,有 44 人出现不良结局(31 人死亡,13 人功能下降伴严重症状)。按 Lee 指数四分位数的不良结局风险分别为 6.8%(参考)、17.9%(比值比 [OR],3.0;95%置信区间 [0.9-10.2])、20.0%(OR 3.4;[1.0-11.4])和 34.0%(OR 7.1;[2.2-22.6])(趋势检验 p 值=0.001)。按 FI 四分位数的不良结局风险分别为 3.6%(参考)、10.3%(OR 3.1;[0.6-15.8])、25.0%(OR 8.8;[1.9-41.0])和 37.3%(OR 15.8;[3.5-71.1])(趋势检验 p 值<0.001)。Lee 指数预测 SAVR 队列 Lee 指数的不良结局风险(四分位 1-4:2.1、4.0、15.4 和 20.0%;趋势检验 p 值=0.04),但在 TAVR 队列中不适用(四分位 1-4:27.3、29.0、21.3、35.4%;趋势检验 p 值=0.42)。相比之下,FI 在 SAVR 队列中预测不良结局的效果不佳(四分位 1-4:2.3、4.4、15.8 和 0%;趋势检验 p 值=0.24),但在 TAVR 队列中(四分位 1-4:9.1、14.3、29.7 和 40.7%;趋势检验 p 值=0.004)。与 Lee 指数相比,FI 在总队列(Lee 指数与 FI:0.680 与 0.735;p=0.03)和 TAVR 队列(0.560 与 0.644;p=0.03)中具有更高的 C 统计量,但在 SAVR 队列中则不然(0.724 与 0.766;p=0.09)。
虽然一般死亡率指数 Lee 指数可以很好地预测 SAVR 患者 12 个月时的死亡或功能下降伴严重症状,但来自多领域老年评估的 FI 更能为高风险 TAVR 患者提供风险分层信息。