Cognitive impairment, age, quality of life, and treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation in older adults: The SAGE-AF study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment includes anticoagulation for high stroke risk individuals and either rate or rhythm control strategies. We aimed to investigate the impact of age, geriatric factors, and medical comorbidities on choice of rhythm versus rate control strategy in older adults. METHODS: Patients with AF aged ≥65 years with CHA2 DS2 VASc score ≥2 and eligible for anticoagulation were recruited for the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements-AF (SAGE-AF) prospective cohort study. An interview that included measures of HRQoL, cognitive function, vision, hearing, and frailty was performed. The association between these elements and AF treatment strategy was examined by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred forty-four participants (mean age 76 years; 49% female; 85% non-Hispanic white) were enrolled. Rate and rhythm control were used in 534 and 710 participants, respectively. Compared to participants <75 years, those ≥75 were more likely to be treated with a rate control strategy (age 75-84 adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.37 [95% CI 0.99, 1.88]; age 85+ aOR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.30, 3.21). Those treated with a rate control strategy were more likely to have cognitive impairment (aOR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.13, 1.99), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (aOR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.22, 2.72) but less likely to have visual impairment (aOR 0.73 [0.55, 0.98]), congestive heart failure (CHF; aOR 0.68 [0.49, 0.94]) or receive anticoagulation (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36, 0.78). CONCLUSION: Older age, cognitive impairment, and PVD were associated with use of rate control strategy. Visual impairment, CHF, and anticoagulation use were associated with a rhythm control strategy. There was no difference in HRQoL between the rate and rhythm control groups. This study suggests that certain geriatric elements may be associated with AF treatment strategies. Further study is needed to evaluate how these decisions affect outcomes.

Multimorbidity, physical frailty, and self-rated health in older patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Holistic care models emphasize management of comorbid conditions to improve patient-reported outcomes in treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). We investigated relations between multimorbidity, physical frailty, and self-rated health (SRH) among older adults with AF. METHODS: Patients (n = 1235) with AF aged 65 years and older were recruited from five medical centers in Massachusetts and Georgia between 2015 and 2018. Ten previously diagnosed cardiometabolic and 8 non-cardiometabolic conditions were assessed from medical records. Physical Frailty was assessed with the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty scale. SRH was categorized as either "excellent/very good", "good", and "fair/poor". Separate multivariable ordinal logistic models were used to examine the associations between multimorbidity and SRH, physical frailty and SRH, and multimorbidity and physical frailty. RESULTS: Overall, 16% of participants rated their health as fair/poor and 14% were frail. Hypertension (90%), dyslipidemia (80%), and heart failure (37%) were the most prevalent cardiometabolic conditions. Arthritis (51%), anemia (31%), and cancer (30%), the most common non-cardiometabolic diseases. After multivariable adjustment, patients with higher multimorbidity were more likely to report poorer health status (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.15 [95% CI: 1.53-3.03], ≥ 8 vs 1-4; OR: 1.37 [95% CI: 1.02-1.83], 5-7 vs 1-4), as did those with more prevalent cardiometabolic and non-cardiometabolic conditions. Patients who were pre-frail (OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.30-2.30]) or frail (OR: 6.81 [95% CI: 4.34-10.68]) reported poorer health status. Higher multimorbidity was associated with worse frailty status. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity and physical frailty were common and related to SRH. Our findings suggest that holistic management approaches may influence SRH among older patients with AF.

Frailty, Cognitive Impairment, and Anticoagulation Among Older Adults with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is challenging in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who are often frail and have cognitive impairment. We examined the characteristics of older NVAF patients associated with higher odds of physical and cognitive impairments. We also examined if these high-risk patients have different OAC prescribing patterns and their satisfaction with treatment because it may impact optimal management of their NVAF. METHODS: The patients in the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements in Atrial Fibrillation (SAGE-AF study cohort 2016-2018) had NVAF, were aged 65 and older, and eligible for the receipt of OAC. Measures included frailty (Fried Frailty scale), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Battery), OAC prescribing and type (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] or vitamin K antagonist [VKA]), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), bleeding, stroke risk, and treatment benefit (Anti-Clot Treatment Scale). RESULTS: Patients (n = 1,244) were 49% female, aged 76 (standard deviation = 7) years. A total of 14% were frail, and 42% had cognitive impairment. Frailty and cognitive impairment co-occurred in 9%. Odds of having both impairments versus none were higher with depression (odds ratio [OR] = 4.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.59-8.26), older age (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.29-1.88), lower education (OR = 3.81; 95%CI = 2.13-6.81), race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White (OR = 7.94; 95% CI = 4.34-14.55), bleeding risk (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.12-1.81), and stroke risk (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.13-1.62). OAC prescribing was not associated with CI and frailty status. Among patients taking OACs (85%), those with both impairments were more likely to take DOAC than VKA (OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.01-2.80). Having both impairments (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.08-3.27) or cognitive impairment (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.09-2.24) was associated with higher odds of reporting lower treatment benefit. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of older NVAF patients, half were frail or cognitively impaired, and 9% had both impairments. We highlight the characteristics of patients who may benefit from cognitive and physical function screenings to maximize treatment and enhance prognosis. Finally, the co-occurrence of impairment was associated with low perceived benefit of treatment that may impede optimal management.

Geriatric Elements and Oral Anticoagulant Prescribing in Older Atrial Fibrillation Patients: SAGE-AF.

OBJECTIVES: Oral anticoagulants are the cornerstone of stroke prevention in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Geriatric elements, such as cognitive impairment and frailty, commonly occur in these patients and are often cited as reasons for not prescribing oral anticoagulants. We sought to systematically assess geriatric impairments in patients with AF and determine whether they were associated with oral anticoagulant prescribing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the ongoing Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements in Atrial Fibrillation (SAGE-AF) prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter study with site locations in Massachusetts and Georgia that recruited participants from cardiology, electrophysiology, and primary care clinics from 2016 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with AF age 65 years or older, CHA2 DS2 -VASc (congestive heart failure; hypertension; aged ≥75 y [doubled]; diabetes mellitus; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism [doubled]; vascular disease; age 65-74; female sex) score of 2 or higher, and no oral anticoagulant contraindications (n = 1244). MEASUREMENTS: A six-component geriatric assessment included validated measures of frailty, cognitive function, social support, depressive symptoms, vision, and hearing. Oral anticoagulant use was abstracted from the medical record. RESULTS: A total of 1244 participants (mean age = 76 y; 49% female; 85% white) were enrolled; 42% were cognitively impaired, 14% frail, 53% pre-frail, 12% socially isolated, and 29% had depressive symptoms. Oral anticoagulants were prescribed to 86% of the cohort. Oral anticoagulant prescribing did not vary according to any of the geriatric elements (adjusted odds ratios [ORs] for oral anticoagulant prescribing and cognitive impairment: OR = .75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .51-1.09; frail OR = .69; 95% CI = .35-1.36; social isolation OR = .90; 95% CI = .52-1.54; depression OR = .79; 95% CI = .49-1.27; visual impairment OR = .98; 95% CI = .65-1.48; and hearing impairment OR = 1.05; 95% CI = .71-1.54). CONCLUSION: Geriatric impairments, particularly cognitive impairment and frailty, were common in our cohort, but treatment with oral anticoagulants did not differ by impairment status. These geriatric impairments are commonly cited as reasons for not prescribing oral anticoagulants, suggesting that prescribers may either be unaware or deliberately ignoring the presence of these factors in clinical settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:147-154, 2019.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes by left ventricular ejection fraction in a contemporary heart failure population.

BACKGROUND: Although heart failure (HF) is a syndrome with important differences in response to therapy by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), existing risk stratification models typically group all HF patients together. The relative importance of common predictor variables for important clinical outcomes across strata of LVEF is relatively unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified all members with HF between 2005 and 2008 from 4 integrated healthcare systems in the Cardiovascular Research Network. LVEF was categorized as preserved (LVEF ≥ 50% or normal), borderline (41%-49% or mildly reduced), and reduced (≤ 40% or moderately to severely reduced). We used Cox regression models to identify independent predictors of death and hospitalization by LVEF category. Among 30094 ambulatory adults with HF, mean age was 74 years and 46% were women. LVEF was preserved in 49.5%, borderline in 16.2%, and reduced in 34.3% of patients. During a median follow-up of 1.8 years (interquartile range, 0.8-3.1), 8060 (26.8%) patients died, 8108 (26.9%) were hospitalized for HF, and 20272 (67.4%) were hospitalized for any reason. In multivariable models, nearly all tested covariates performed similarly across LVEF strata for the outcome of death from any cause, as well as for HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: We found that in a large, diverse contemporary HF population, risk assessment was strikingly similar across all LVEF categories. These data suggest that, although many HF therapies are uniquely applied to patients with reduced LVEF, individual prognostic factor performance does not seem to be significantly related to level of left ventricular systolic function.