Syncope in the elderly: An update

Abstract Syncope in the elderly is an extremely prevalent clinical condition characterized by high mortality and presence of recurrences. The diagnosis of syncope in the elderly is sometimes difficult and multidimensional geriatric assessment should be carefully administered. Diagnostic algorithms should be applied with attention, although unknown syncope is still frequent. The therapeutic approach to syncope in the elderly is complicated by the high prevalence of neurally-mediated syncope, in which the therapeutic approach is still unknown. The establishment of a "Syncope Unit" has certainly improved the diagnostic-therapeutic approach to patients with syncope, especially in old age where the management is extremely difficult

Syncope and Epilepsy coexist in 'possible' and 'drug-resistant' epilepsy (Overlap between Epilepsy and Syncope Study - OESYS).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Syncope and related falls are one of the main causes and the predominant cause of hospitalization in elderly patients with dementia. However, the diagnostic protocol for syncope is difficult to apply to patients with dementia. Thus, we developed a "simplified" protocol to be used in a prospective, observational, and multicenter study in elderly patients with dementia and transient loss of consciousness suspected for syncope or unexplained falls. Here, we describe the protocol, its feasibility and the characteristics of the patients enrolled in the study. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of dementia and one or more episodes of transient loss of consciousness during the previous 3 months, subsequently referred to a Geriatric Department in different regions of Italy, from February 2012 to May 2014, were enrolled. A simplified protocol was applied in all patients. Selected patients underwent a second-level evaluation. RESULTS: Three hundred and three patients were enrolled; 52.6% presented with episodes suspected to be syncope, 44.5% for unexplained fall and 2.9% both. Vascular dementia had been previously diagnosed in 53.6% of participants, Alzheimer's disease in 23.5% and mixed forms in 12.6%. Patients presented with high comorbidity (CIRS score = 3.6 ± 2), severe functional impairment, (BADL lost = 3 ± 2), and polypharmacy (6 ± 3 drugs). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with dementia enrolled for suspected syncope and unexplained falls have high comorbidity and disability. The clinical presentation is often atypical and the presence of unexplained falls is particularly frequent

Validation of "(fr)AGILE": a quick tool to identify multidimensional frailty in the elderly

Background: Several tools have been proposed and validated to operationally define frailty. Recently, the Italian Frailty index (IFi), an Italian modified version of Frailty index, has been validated but its use in clinical practice is limited by long time of administration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to create and validate a quick version of the IFi (AGILE). Methods: Validation study was performed by administering IFi and AGILE, after a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in 401 subjects aged 65 or over (77 ± 7 years). AGILE was a 10-items tool created starting from the more predictive items of the four domains of frailty investigated by IFi (mental, physical, socioeconomic and nutritional). AGILE scores were stratified in light, moderate and severe frailty. At 24 months of follow-up, death, disability (taking into account an increase in ADL lost ≥1 from the baseline) and hospitalization were considered. Area under curve (AUC) was evaluated for both IFi and AGILE. Results: Administration time was 9.5 ± 3.8 min for IFi administered after a CGA, and 2.4 ± 1.2 min for AGILE, regardless of CGA (p < 0.001). With increasing degree of frailty, prevalence of mortality increased progressively from 6.5 to 41.8% and from 9.0 to 33.3%, disability from 16.1 to 64.2% and from 22.1 to 59.8% and hospitalization from 17.2 to 58.7% and from 27.0 to 52.2% with AGILE and IFi, respectively (p = NS). Relative Risk for each unit of increase in AGILE was 56, 44 and 24% for mortality, disability and hospitalization, respectively and was lower for IFi (8, 7 and 4% for mortality, disability and hospitalization, respectively). The AUC was higher in AGILE vs. IFi for mortality (0.729 vs. 0.698), disability (0.715 vs. 0.682) and hospitalization (0.645 vs. 0.630). Conclusions: Our study shows that AGILE is a rapid and effective tool for screening multidimensional frailty, able to predict mortality, disability and hospitalization, especially useful in care settings that require reliable assessment instruments with short administration time

Physical vs. multidimensional frailty in older adults with and without heart failure

Aims The assessment of frailty in older adults with heart failure (HF) is still debated. Here, we compare the predictive role and the diagnostic accuracy of physical vs. multidimensional frailty assessment on mortality, disability, and hospitalization in older adults with and without HF. Methods and results A total of 1077 elderly (≥65 years) outpatients were evaluated with the physical (phy‐Fi) and multidimensional (m‐Fi) frailty scores and according to the presence or the absence of HF. Mortality, disability, and hospitalizations were assessed at baseline and after a 24 month follow‐up. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that, compared with phy‐Fi score, m‐Fi score was more predictive of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05 vs. 0.66], disability (HR = 1.02 vs. 0.89), and hospitalization (HR = 1.03 vs. 0.96) in the absence and even more in the presence of HF (HR = 1.11 vs. 0.63, 1.06 vs. 0.98, and 1.14 vs. 1.03, respectively). The area under the curve indicated a better diagnostic accuracy with m‐Fi score than with phy‐Fi score for mortality, disability, and hospitalizations, both in absence (0.782 vs. 0.649, 0.763 vs. 0.695, and 0.732 vs. 0.666, respectively) and in presence of HF (0.824 vs. 0.625, 0.886 vs. 0.793, and 0.812 vs. 0.688, respectively). Conclusions The m‐Fi score is able to predict mortality, disability, and hospitalizations better than the phy‐Fi score, not only in absence but also in presence of HF. Our data also demonstrate that the m‐Fi score has better diagnostic accuracy than the phy‐Fi score. Thus, the use of the m‐FI score should be considered for the assessment of frailty in older HF adults