volume 179 issue 3 pages 383

Evaluation of Changes in Functional Status in the Year After Aortic Valve Replacement

D H Kim 1, 2, 3
J. Afilalo 4
Sandra Shi 1
Jeffrey J. Popma 5
Kamal R. Khabbaz 6
Roger J. Laham 5
F Grodstein 7
Kimberly Guibone 5
Eliah Lux 1
Lewis A. Lipsitz 1, 3
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2019-03-01
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR4.623
CiteScore24.7
Impact factor23.3
ISSN21686106, 21686114
Internal Medicine
Abstract
Functional status is a patient-centered outcome that is important for a meaningful gain in health-related quality of life after aortic valve replacement.To determine functional status trajectories in the year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).A prospective cohort study with a 12-month follow-up was conducted at a single academic center in 246 patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis. The study was conducted between February 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017; data analysis was performed from December 27, 2017, to May 7, 2018.Preoperative comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed and a deficit-accumulation frailty index (CGA-FI) (range, 0-1; higher values indicate greater frailty) was calculated.Telephone interviews were conducted to assess self-reported ability to perform 22 activities and physical tasks at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the procedure.Of the 246 patients included in the study, 143 underwent TAVR (74 [51.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 84.2 [5.9] years), and 103 underwent SAVR (46 [44.7%] women; age, 78.1 [5.3] years). Five trajectories were identified based on functional status at baseline and during the follow-up: from excellent at baseline to improvement at follow-up (excellent baseline-improvement), good (high baseline-full recovery), fair (moderate baseline-minimal decline), poor (low baseline-moderate decline), and very poor (low baseline-large decline). After TAVR, the most common trajectory was fair (54 [37.8%]), followed by good (33 [23.1%]), poor (21 [14.7%]), excellent (20 [14.0%]), and very poor (12 [8.4%]) trajectories. After SAVR, the most common trajectory was good (39 [37.9%]), followed by excellent (38 [36.9%]), fair (20 [19.4%]), poor (3 [2.9%]), and very poor (1 [1.0%]) trajectories. Preoperative frailty level was associated with lower probability of functional improvement and greater probability of functional decline. After TAVR, patients with CGA-FI level of 0.20 or lower had excellent (3 [50.0%]) or good (3 [50.0%]) trajectories, whereas most patients with CGA-FI level of 0.51 or higher had poor (10 [45.5%]) or very poor (5 [22.7%]) trajectories. After SAVR, most patients with CGA-FI level of 0.20 or lower had excellent (24 [58.5%]) or good (15 [36.6%]) trajectories compared with a fair trajectory (5 [71.4%]) in those with CGA-FI levels of 0.41 to 0.50. Postoperative delirium and major complications were associated with functional decline after TAVR (delirium present vs absent: 14 [50.0%] vs 11 [13.4%]; complications present vs absent: 14 [51.9%] vs 19 [16.4%]) or lack of improvement after SAVR (delirium present vs absent: 27 [69.2%] vs 31 [81.6%]; complications present vs absent: 10 [62.5%] vs 69 [79.3%]).The findings suggest that functional decline or lack of improvement is common in older adults with severe frailty undergoing TAVR or SAVR. Although this nonrandomized study does not allow comparison of the effectiveness between TAVR and SAVR, anticipated functional trajectories may inform patient-centered decision making and perioperative care to optimize functional outcomes.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

2
4
6
8
10
12
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 publications, 12.63%
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
4 publications, 4.21%
JACC Advances
4 publications, 4.21%
BMC Geriatrics
3 publications, 3.16%
British Journal of Anaesthesia
3 publications, 3.16%
Korean Journal of Internal Medicine
3 publications, 3.16%
Anesthesia and Analgesia
2 publications, 2.11%
Aging clinical and experimental research
2 publications, 2.11%
Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging
2 publications, 2.11%
Canadian Journal of Cardiology
2 publications, 2.11%
Clinical Interventions in Aging
2 publications, 2.11%
Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
2 publications, 2.11%
BMJ Open
2 publications, 2.11%
Aging
1 publication, 1.05%
Current Cardiology Reports
1 publication, 1.05%
Journal of the American Heart Association
1 publication, 1.05%
Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention
1 publication, 1.05%
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
1 publication, 1.05%
JAMA network open
1 publication, 1.05%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
1 publication, 1.05%
Sensors
1 publication, 1.05%
European Geriatric Medicine
1 publication, 1.05%
Journal of Anesthesia
1 publication, 1.05%
BMC Medicine
1 publication, 1.05%
Heart and Vessels
1 publication, 1.05%
Cardiology Clinics
1 publication, 1.05%
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
1 publication, 1.05%
American Journal of Medicine
1 publication, 1.05%
Bone
1 publication, 1.05%
2
4
6
8
10
12

Publishers

5
10
15
20
25
30
Elsevier
26 publications, 27.37%
Wiley
17 publications, 17.89%
Springer Nature
14 publications, 14.74%
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
7 publications, 7.37%
MDPI
5 publications, 5.26%
Oxford University Press
4 publications, 4.21%
BMJ
3 publications, 3.16%
Korean Association of Internal Medicine
3 publications, 3.16%
American Medical Association (AMA)
2 publications, 2.11%
Taylor & Francis
2 publications, 2.11%
Frontiers Media S.A.
2 publications, 2.11%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
2 publications, 2.11%
Impact Journals
1 publication, 1.05%
XMLink
1 publication, 1.05%
American College of Physicians
1 publication, 1.05%
JMIR Publications
1 publication, 1.05%
Radcliffe Media Media Ltd
1 publication, 1.05%
China Science Publishing & Media
1 publication, 1.05%
5
10
15
20
25
30
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
95
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Kim D. H. et al. Evaluation of Changes in Functional Status in the Year After Aortic Valve Replacement // JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019. Vol. 179. No. 3. p. 383.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Kim D. H., Afilalo J., Shi S., Popma J. J., Khabbaz K. R., Laham R. J., Grodstein F., Guibone K., Lux E., Lipsitz L. A. Evaluation of Changes in Functional Status in the Year After Aortic Valve Replacement // JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019. Vol. 179. No. 3. p. 383.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6738
UR - https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6738
TI - Evaluation of Changes in Functional Status in the Year After Aortic Valve Replacement
T2 - JAMA Internal Medicine
AU - Kim, D H
AU - Afilalo, J.
AU - Shi, Sandra
AU - Popma, Jeffrey J.
AU - Khabbaz, Kamal R.
AU - Laham, Roger J.
AU - Grodstein, F
AU - Guibone, Kimberly
AU - Lux, Eliah
AU - Lipsitz, Lewis A.
PY - 2019
DA - 2019/03/01
PB - American Medical Association (AMA)
SP - 383
IS - 3
VL - 179
PMID - 30715097
SN - 2168-6106
SN - 2168-6114
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2019_Kim,
author = {D H Kim and J. Afilalo and Sandra Shi and Jeffrey J. Popma and Kamal R. Khabbaz and Roger J. Laham and F Grodstein and Kimberly Guibone and Eliah Lux and Lewis A. Lipsitz},
title = {Evaluation of Changes in Functional Status in the Year After Aortic Valve Replacement},
journal = {JAMA Internal Medicine},
year = {2019},
volume = {179},
publisher = {American Medical Association (AMA)},
month = {mar},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6738},
number = {3},
pages = {383},
doi = {10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6738}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Kim, D. H., et al. “Evaluation of Changes in Functional Status in the Year After Aortic Valve Replacement.” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 179, no. 3, Mar. 2019, p. 383. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6738.