Profiles of Geriatric Syndromes and Resources in Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Joshua Verleysdonk,Nicolas Noetzel,Ingrid Becker,Lena Pickert,Thomas Benzing,Roman Pfister,Maria Cristina Polidori,Anna Maria Affeldt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144009
2024-07-09
Abstract:Objective: Older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) are at high risk for frailty and geriatric syndromes (GSs), which modulate their individual prognosis and are therefore relevant for further management. Because few studies have evaluated the geriatric profile of older AF patients, this secondary analysis aims to further characterize the patterns of GSs and geriatric resources (GRs) in AF patients and their association with anticoagulation use. Methods: Data from 362 hospitalized patients aged 65 years and older with AF (n = 181, 77.8 ± 5.8 years, 38% female) and without AF (non-AF [NAF]; n = 181, 77.5 ± 5.9 years, 40% female) admitted to an internal medicine and nephrology ward of a large university hospital in Germany were included. All patients underwent usual care plus a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) including calculation of the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) and collection of 17 GSs and 10 GRs. Patients were followed up by telephone 6 and 12 months after discharge to collect data on their health status. Results: The mean MPI score of 0.47 indicated an average risk of poor outcome, and patients with AF had a significantly higher MPI than those without AF (p = 0.040). After adjustment for chronological age, biological sex, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) for relevant chronic diagnoses and MPI as a proxy for biological age, AF patients had significantly more mnestic resources (63.5% vs. 33.1%, p < 0.001), a tendency for less age-appropriate living conditions (56.4% vs. 72.9%, p = 0.051) and more sensory impairment (78.5% vs. 52.5%, p < 0.001) than NAF patients. They also had a higher number of GSs (p = 0.046). AF patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs, n = 91) had less age-appropriate living conditions (48.4% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.05) and mnestic resources (36.3% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.01), but more emotional resources (80.2% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.05) and chronic pain (56% vs. 40%, p < 0.05) than patients without OACs (n = 90). Overall, mortality at 1 year was increased in patients with a higher MPI (p < 0.009, adjusted for age, sex and CIRS), with a diagnosis of AF (p = 0.007, adjusted for age, sex, CIRS and MPI), with of male sex (p = 0.008, adjusted for age, CIRS and MPI) and those with AF and treated with hemodialysis (p = 0.022, compared to AF patients without dialysis treatment). Conclusions: Patients with AF and patients with AF and OACs show differences in their multidimensional frailty degree as well as GR and GS profiles compared to patients without AF or with AF not treated with OACs. Mortality after 1 year is increased in AF patients with a higher MPI and dialysis, independently from OAC use and overall burden of chronic disease as assessed per CIRS. GRs and GSs, especially age-appropriate living conditions, emotional resources, sensory impairment and chronic pain, can be considered as factors that may modify the individual impact of frailty, underscoring the relevance of these parameters in the management of older patients.