The Association Between Geriatric Syndromes and Survival

School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (Impact Factor: 4.22). 05/2012; 60(5):896-904. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03942.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To ascertain the effect on survival of eight common geriatric syndromes (multiple comorbidities, cognitive impairment, frailty, disability, sarcopenia, malnutrition, homeostenosis, and chronic inflammation), identified by an expert panel of academic geriatricians.
A systematic literature review sought studies from a variety of sources to compare survival and life expectancy of individuals with geriatric syndromes with those of the general population.
Studies used reflected the general population.
Community-dwelling persons aged 65 and older.
Eight geriatric syndromes (multiple definitions) and survival.
Two thousand three hundred seventy-four publications were retrieved, and 509 publications of 123 studies were included. Seven geriatric syndromes (multiple comorbidities, cognitive impairment, frailty, disability, malnutrition, impaired homeostasis, and chronic inflammation) were associated with poor survival. In each case, the prevalence of a syndrome was negatively associated with mortality. Malnutrition and impaired homeostasis exerted twice the influence of factors such as multiple comorbidities and frailty. From age 65 to 74, only those who are very ill or frail (e.g., impaired homeostasis, low body mass index, or advanced dementia) have a higher risk of mortality than average older adults. In the old-old, particularly aged 90 and older, the added value of predicting survival beyond 1 year is minimal.
Geriatric syndrome information is helpful to understanding survival for younger old persons but provides little information about survival for the very old. Complex survival models add comparatively little benefit to more simply measured and calculated models.

Download full-text


Available from: Tatyana Shamliyan, May 07, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe conceptual innovations in palliative care epidemiology and the methods to identify patients in need of palliative care, in all settings.In middle-high-income countries, more than 75% of the population will die from chronic progressive diseases. Around 1.2-1.4% of such populations suffer from chronic advanced conditions, with limited life expectancy. Clinical status deteriorates progressively with frequent crises of needs, high social impact, and high use of costly healthcare resources. The innovative concept of patients with advanced chronic diseases and limited life prognosis has been addressed recently, and several methods to identify them have been developed. The challenges are to promote early and shared interventions, extended to all patients in need, in all settings of the social care and healthcare systems; to design and develop Palliative Care Programmes with a Public Health perspective. The first action is to identify, using the appropriate tools early in the clinical evolution of the disease, all patients in need of palliative care in all settings of care, especially in primary care services, nursing homes, and healthcare services responsible for care provision for these patients; to promote appropriate care in patients with advanced diseases with prognosis of poor survival.
    Current opinion in supportive and palliative care 07/2012; 6(3):371-8. DOI:10.1097/SPC.0b013e328356aaed
  • Source
    European geriatric medicine 09/2012; 3:S3–S4. DOI:10.1016/j.eurger.2012.07.373 · 0.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this analysis was to investigate the relationship of statins with institutionalisation and death in older men living in the community, accounting for frailty. Prospective cohort study. Community-dwelling men participating in the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project, Sydney, Australia. Men aged ≥70 years (n=1665). Data collected during baseline assessments and follow-up (maximum of 6.79 years) were obtained. Information regarding statin use was captured at baseline, between 2005 and 2007. Proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to estimate the risk of institutionalisation and death according to statin use (exposure, duration and dose) and frailty status, with adjustment for sociodemographics, medical diagnosis and other clinically relevant factors. A secondary analysis used propensity score matching to replicate covariate adjustment in regression models. At baseline, 43% of participants reported taking statins. Over 6.79 years of follow-up, 132 (7.9%) participants were institutionalised and 358 (21.5%) participants had died. In the adjusted models, baseline statin use was not statistically associated with increased risk of institutionalisation (HR=1.60; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.63) or death (HR=0.88; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.18). There was no significant association between duration and dose of statins used with either outcome. Propensity scoring yielded similar findings. Compared with non-frail participants not prescribed statins, the adjusted HR for institutionalisation for non-frail participants prescribed statins was 1.43 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.51); for frail participants not prescribed statins, it was 2.07 (95% CI 1.11 to 3.86) and for frail participants prescribed statins, it was 4.34 (95% CI 2.02 to 9.33). These data suggest a lack of significant association between statin use and institutionalisation or death in older men. These findings call for real-world trials specifically designed for frail older people to examine the impact of statins on clinical outcomes.
    BMJ Open 03/2013; 3(3). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002333 · 2.06 Impact Factor
Show more