Frailty Status and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Octogenarians Following Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

What patient-reported outcome measures may be suitable for research involving older adults with frailty? A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The need to develop and evaluate frailty-related interventions is increasingly important, and inclusion of patient-reported outcomes is vital. Patient-reported outcomes can be defined as measures of health, quality of life or functional status reported directly by patients with no clinician interpretation. Numerous validated questionnaires can thus be considered patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This review aimed to identify existing PROMs currently used in quantitative research that may be suitable for older people with frailty.

METHOD

PubMed and Cochrane were searched up to 24/11/22. Inclusion criteria were quantitative studies, use of a PROM, and either measurement of frailty or inclusion of older adult participants. Criteria were created to distinguish PROMs from questionnaire-based clinical assessments. 197 papers were screened. PROMs were categorized according to the domain assessed, as derived from a published consensus 'Standard Set of Health Outcome Measures for Older People'.

RESULTS

88 studies were included. 112 unique PROMs were used 289 times, most frequently the SF-36 (n = 21), EQ-5D (n = 21) and Barthel Index (n = 14). The most frequently assessed outcome domains included Mood and Emotional Health and Activities of Daily Living, with fewer assessments of Participation in Decision-Making and Carer Burden.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM usage in frailty research is highly heterogeneous. Frequently used PROMs omit important outcomes identified by older adults. Further research should evaluate the importance of specific outcomes and identify PROMs relevant to people at different stages of frailty. Consistent and appropriate PROM use in frailty research would facilitate more effective comparisons and meaningful evaluation of frailty interventions.

The prognostic impacts of frailty on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery or valvular surgeries/procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Frailty is emerging as an important prognostic indicator for patients undergoing cardiac surgeries/procedures. We sought to evaluate the prognostic and differential impacts of frailty on patients undergoing coronary artery or valvular surgical procedures of different levels of invasiveness, and to explore the differential predictability of various frailty measurement models.

METHODS

Eight databases were searched for prospective cohort studies that have adopted validated measure(s) of frailty and reported clinical, healthcare service utilization, or patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery or valvular surgeries/procedures.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles were included (N = 16,679). Frailty significantly predicted mortality (short-term [≤ 30 days]: odds ratio [OR]: 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-4.26; midterm [6 months to 1 year]: OR: 3.93, 95%CI: 2.65-5.83; long-term [>1 year]: HR: 2.23, 95%CI: 1.60-3.11), postoperative complications (ORs: 2.54-3.57), discharge to care facilities (OR: 5.52, 95%CI: 3.84-7.94), hospital readmission (OR: 2.00, 95%CI: 1.15-3.50), and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL; standardized mean difference: -0.74, 95%CI: -1.30 to -0.18). Subgroup analyses showed that frailty exerted a greater impact on short-term mortality in patients undergoing open-heart surgeries than those receiving transcatheter procedures. Multidimensional and physical-aspect-focused frailty measurements performed equally in predicting mortality, but multidimensional measurements were more predictive of hospital readmission than physical-aspect-focused measurements.

CONCLUSION

Frailty was predictive of postoperative mortality, complications, increased healthcare service utilization, and reduced HRQoL. The impact of frailty on short-term mortality was more prominent in patients undergoing open-heart surgeries than those receiving transcatheter procedures. Multidimensional measures of frailty enhanced prognostic risk estimation, especially for hospital readmission.

Shared Decision-Making and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Valvular Heart Disease

Patient-centered health care emphasizes shared decision-making (SDM), incorporating both clinical evidence and patient preferences and values. SDM is important in heart valve disease, both because there might be more than one treatment option and due to the importance of adherence after intervention. We aimed to describe patient information and involvement in decision-making about care and recording of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in valve interventions. The opinion piece and recommendations are based upon literature review and our own experience from specialist valve clinics. Before a valve intervention, adequate patient information, discussion of the various treatment options and exploring patient preferences, in line with the concept of SDM, may improve post-intervention quality of life. After intervention, patients with prosthetic heart valves require adequate counseling and close follow-up to make them more confident and competent to manage their own health, as well as to maintain the efficacy of treatment provided. PROMs inform SDM before and improve care after valve intervention, focusing on outcomes beyond mortality and morbidity. SDM may improve post-intervention quality of life. Formal PROMs questionnaires inform SDM, quantify patient centered changes and should be used more often in clinical practice and research. A thorough assessment of baseline frailty status in patients scheduled for valve intervention is essential and may affect postoperative outcome.

Post-operative Quality of Life after Full-sternotomy and Mini-sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Few longitudinal data exist comparing quality of life (QoL) after full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (fsAVR) vs mini-sternotomy AVR (msAVR) METHODS: 1844 consecutive AVR prospectively enrolled in a European multicentre Registry were dichotomized according to surgical access. A non-parsimonious propensity-score matching selected 187 pairs of fsAVR or msAVR with comparable baseline characteristics. Hospital outcome was compared in the two groups. QoL was assessed with Short Form-36, further detailed in its Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS). QoL was investigated at hospital admission, discharge, 1 month, 6 months and 1 year thereafter.

RESULTS

There were 1654 fsAVR and 190 msAVR in the entire population. fsAVR showed a worse preoperative risk-profile, a longer ICU length of stay (59.7 hours vs 38.8, p=0.002), and a higher life-threatening/disabling bleeding (4.1% vs. 0%; p=0.011); msAVR reported a higher early reintervention for failed index intervention (2.1% vs. 0.5%, p=0.001). QoL showed better PCS and MCS at 1 month after fsAVR, but no temporal-trend differences (PCS group-time p=0.202; MCS group-time p=0.141). Propensity-matched pairs showed comparable baseline characteristics and hospital outcome (p=NS for all endpoints), and comparable improvements of PCS and MCS over time, but no between-group differences over time (PCS group-time p=0.834; MCS group-time p=0.737).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with similar baseline profiles report comparable hospital outcome and comparable improvement of physical and mental health, up to 1 year after surgery, with both fsAVR and msAVR. As for QoL, mini-sternotomy does not seem to offer any advantage compared to the traditional approach.