BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

The rate of surgical procedures in the older population is rising. Despite surgical, anaesthetic and medical advances, older surgical patients continue to suffer from adverse postoperative outcomes. Comorbidities and reduction in physiological reserve are consistently identified as major predictors of poor postoperative outcome in this population. Frailty can be defined as a lack of physiological reserve seen across multiple organ systems and is an independent predictor of mortality, morbidity and institutionalisation after surgery. Despite this identification of frailty as a significant predictor of adverse postoperative outcome, there is not yet a consensus on the definition of frailty or how best to assess and diagnose it. This review describes our current definitions of frailty and discusses the available methods of assessing frailty, the impact on the older surgical population and the emerging potential for modification of this important syndrome.

SummaryComprehensive geriatric assessment is an established clinical approach. It reduces mortality and improves the physical wellbeing of older people in the community or hospitalised for medical reasons. Pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment seems a plausible method for reducing adverse postoperative outcomes. The objectives of this systematic review and narrative synthesis are to describe how pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment has been used in surgical patients and to examine the impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment on postoperative outcomes in older patients undergoing scheduled surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from 1980 to 2013 (week 26). We included five studies: two randomised controlled trials and three before-and-after intervention quasi-experimental studies. Patient populations, interventions and outcome measures varied between studies. Both the randomised trials showed benefit on postoperative outcomes, including medical complications. Two of the before-and-after studies reported a positive impact on postoperative length of stay and other outcomes. The heterogeneity of study methods, populations, interventions and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Based on this narrative synthesis, pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment is likely to have a positive impact on postoperative outcomes in older patients undergoing elective surgery, but further definitive research is required. Clinical services providing pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment for older surgical patients should be considered. An increasing proportion of the ageing population is undergoing surgery [1]. Despite the benefits of surgery seen in this population, the rate of adverse postoperative outcomes increases with age [2]. Postoperative complications are predominantly medical rather than surgical [3], and their increased rate is associated with physiological age [4], multimorbidity [5,6] and geriatric syndromes, including frailty [7], sarcopenia [8] and delirium [9]. Although adverse postoperative outcomes and the risk factors for developing these are well described in older surgical patients [2], a national UK report has highlighted deficiencies in the care provided to this patient population [10]. Furthermore, pre-operative assessment has not been adapted to identify and modify these geriatric syndromes and multi-morbidity 8