Background-Frailty is an emerging concept in medicine yet to be explored as a risk factor in cardiac surgery. Where elderly patients are increasingly referred for cardiac surgery, the prevalence of a frail group among these is also on the rise. We assessed frailty as a risk factor for adverse outcomes after cardiac surgery. Methods and Results-Functional measures of frailty and clinical data were collected prospectively for all cardiac surgery patients at a single center. Frailty was defined as any impairment in activities of daily living (Katz index), ambulation, or a documented history of dementia. Of 3826 patients, 157 (4.1%) were frail. Frail patients were older, were more likely to be female, and had risk factors for adverse surgical outcomes. By logistic regression, frailty was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0), as well as institutional discharge (odds ratio 6.3, 95% CI 4.2 to 9.4).Frailty was an independent predictor of reduced midterm survival (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.2). Conclusions-Frailty is a risk for postoperative complications and an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, institutional discharge, and reduced midterm survival. Frailty screening improves risk assessment in cardiac surgery patients and may identify a subgroup of patients who may benefit from innovative processes of care. (Circulation. 2010;121:973-978.)
Objective. Control of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. We sought to systematically assess the association between anti-tumor necrosis factor ␣ (anti-TNF␣) therapy in RA and cardiovascular event rates. Conclusion. Anti-TNF␣ therapy is associated with a reduced risk of all cardiovascular events, MI, and CVA in observational cohorts. There was heterogeneity among cohort studies and possible publication bias. The point estimate of the effect from RCTs is underpowered with wide 95% CIs, and cardiovascular events were secondary outcomes, but RCTs also demonstrated a trend toward decreased risk.
BackgroundObesity is a pervasive problem and a popular subject of academic assessment. The ability to take advantage of existing data, such as administrative databases, to study obesity is appealing. The objective of our study was to assess the validity of obesity coding in an administrative database and compare the association between obesity and outcomes in an administrative database versus registry.MethodsThis study was conducted using a coronary catheterization registry and an administrative database (Discharge Abstract Database (DAD)). A Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 within the registry defined obesity. In the DAD obesity was defined by diagnosis codes E65 – E68 (ICD-10). The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of an obesity diagnosis in the DAD was determined using obesity diagnosis in the registry as the referent. The association between obesity and outcomes was assessed.ResultsThe study population of 17380 subjects was largely male (68.8%) with a mean BMI of 27.0 kg/m2. Obesity prevalence was lower in the DAD than registry (2.4% vs. 20.3%). A diagnosis of obesity in the DAD had a sensitivity 7.75%, specificity 98.98%, NPV 80.84% and PPV 65.94%. Obesity was associated with decreased risk of death or re-hospitalization, though non-significantly within the DAD. Obesity was significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiac procedure in both databases.ConclusionsOverall, obesity was poorly coded in the DAD. However, when coded, it was coded accurately. Administrative databases are not an optimal datasource for obesity prevalence and incidence surveillance but could be used to define obese cohorts for follow-up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.