Frailty Measures of Patient-reported Activity and Fatigue May Predict 1-year Outcomes in Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure: A Report From the REVIVAL Registry
Recommended Citation
Lala A, Shah P, Khalatbari S, Yosef M, Mountis MM, Robinson SW, Lanfear DE, Estep JD, Jeffries N, Taddei-Peters WC, Stevenson LW, Richards B, Mann DL, Mancini DM, Stewart GC, and Aaronson KD. Frailty Measures of Patient-reported Activity and Fatigue May Predict 1-year Outcomes in Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure: A Report From the REVIVAL Registry. J Card Fail 2021.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-25-2021
Publication Title
Journal of cardiac failure
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Fried Frailty Phenotype predicts adverse outcomes in geriatric populations, but has not been well-studied in advanced heart failure (HF). The Registry Evaluation of Vital Information for Ventricular Assist Devices (VADs) in Ambulatory Life (REVIVAL) study prospectively collected frailty measures in patients with advanced HF to determine relevant assessments and their impact on clinical outcomes.
METHODS AND RESULTS: HF-Fried Frailty was defined by 5 baseline components (1 point each): (1) weakness: hand grip strength less than 25% of body weight; (2) slowness based on time to walk 15 feet; (3) weight loss of more than 10 lbs in the past year; (4) inactivity; and (5) exhaustion, both assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. A score of 0 or 1 was deemed nonfrail, 2 prefrail, and 3 or greater was considered frail. The primary composite outcome was durable mechanical circulatory support implantation, cardiac transplant or death at 1 year. Event-free survival for each group was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method and the hazard of prefrailty and frailty were compared with nonfrailty with proportional hazards modeling. Among 345 patients with all 5 frailty domains assessed, frailty was present in 17%, prefrailty in 40%, and 43% were nonfrail, with 67% (n = 232) meeting the criteria based on inactivity and 54% (n = 186) for exhaustion. Frail patients had an increased risk of the primary composite outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-5.24; adjusted HR 3.41, 95% CI 1.79-6.52), as did prefrail patients (unadjusted HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14-3.41; adjusted HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.21-3.66) compared with nonfrail patients, however, the predictive value of HF-Fried Frailty criteria was modest (Harrel's C-statistic of 0.603, P = .004).
CONCLUSIONS: The HF-Fried Frailty criteria had only modest predictive power in identifying ambulatory patients with advanced HF at high risk for durable mechanical circulatory support, transplant, or death within 1 year, driven primarily by assessments of inactivity and exhaustion. Focus on these patient-reported measures may better inform clinical trajectories in this population.
PubMed ID
34961663
ePublication
ePub ahead of print
