The MOBILIZE Boston Study: Design and methods of a prospective cohort study of novel risk factors for falls in an older population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Falls are the sixth leading cause of death in elderly people in the U.S. Despite progress in understanding risk factors for falls, many suspected risk factors have not been adequately studied. Putative risk factors for falls such as pain, reductions in cerebral blood flow, somatosensory deficits, and foot disorders are poorly understood, in part because they pose measurement challenges, particularly for large observational studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The MOBILIZE Boston Study (MBS), an NIA-funded Program Project, is a prospective cohort study of a unique set of risk factors for falls in seniors in the Boston area. Using a door-to-door population-based recruitment, we have enrolled 765 persons aged 70 and older. The baseline assessment was conducted in 2 segments: a 3-hour home interview followed within 4 weeks by a 3-hour clinic examination. Measures included pain, cerebral hemodynamics, and foot disorders as well as established fall risk factors. For the falls follow-up, participants return fall calendar postcards to the research center at the end of each month. Reports of falls are followed-up with a telephone interview to assess circumstances and consequences of each fall. A second assessment is performed 18 months following baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 2382 who met all eligibility criteria at the door, 1616 (67.8%) agreed to participate and were referred to the research center for further screening. The primary reason for ineligibility was inability to communicate in English. Results from the first 600 participants showed that participants are largely representative of seniors in the Boston area in terms of age, sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity. The average age of study participants was 77.9 years (s.d. 5.5) and nearly two-thirds were women. The study cohort was 78% white and 17% black. Many participants (39%) reported having fallen at least once in the year before baseline.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting comprehensive assessments, including rigorous physiologic measurements, in a diverse population of older adults to study non-traditional risk factors for falls and disability. The MBS will provide an important new data resource for examining novel risk factors for falls and mobility problems in the older population.</p

Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement program in a community hospital - Comparison with US national data.

Symptomatic aortic stenosis remains a surgical disease, with aortic valve replacement resulting in symptom reduction and improvement in survival. For patients who are deemed a higher surgical risk, Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is a viable, less invasive and increasingly common alternative. The study compares early outcomes in patients treated within one year of the commencement of TAVR program in a community hospital against outcomes of TAVR patients from nationwide reported data (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/ American College of Cardiology TVT registry). Preoperative characteristics and standardized procedural outcomes of all patients who underwent TAVR in Cape Cod Hospital between June 2015 and May 2016 (n = 62, CCH group) were compared using standardized data format to those of TAVR patients operated during the same time period in other centers within the United States participating in the STS/ACC TVT Registry (n = 24,497, USA group). Most preoperative patient characteristics were similar between groups. However, CCH patients were older (age≥80 years: 77.4% versus 64.3%, p = 0.032) and more likely to be non-elective cases (37.1% versus 9.7%, p<0.001). All 62 TAVR procedures in CCH were performed in the catheterization laboratory unlike most (89.7%) of the procedures in the USA group that were performed in hybrid rooms. A larger proportion of patients in the USA registry underwent TAVR under general anesthesia (78.2% vs.37.1%, P<0.001). Early aortic valve re- intervention rate was 0/62 (0%) in the CCH group VS. 74/ 24,497 (0.3%) in the USA group. In hospital mortality, which was defined as death of any cause during thirty days from date of operation, (CCH: 0% vs. USA: 2.5%, p = 0.410) and occurrence of early adverse events (including postoperative para-valvular leaks, conduction defects requiring pacemakers, neurologic and renal complications) were similar in the two groups. The study concludes that with specific team training and co-ordination, and with active support of experienced personnel, high risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis can be managed safely with a TAVR procedure in a community hospital

Routine upstream initiation vs deferred selective use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: the ACUITY Timing trial.

CONTEXT: In patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who undergo an early, invasive treatment strategy, current guidelines recommend administration of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibitors, either upstream to all patients prior to angiography or deferred for selective use in the catheterization laboratory just prior to angioplasty. The preferred approach is undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal strategy for the use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an early, invasive treatment strategy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 30-day clinical follow-up. SETTING: Four hundred fifty academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. PATIENTS: A total of 9207 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either routine upstream (n=4605) or deferred selective (n=4602) Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was assessment of noninferiority of deferred Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor use compared with upstream administration for the prevention of composite ischemic events (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 30 days, using a 1-sided alpha level of .025. Major secondary end points included noninferiority or superiority of major bleeding and net clinical outcomes (composite ischemia or major bleeding). RESULTS: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used more frequently (98.3% vs 55.7%, respectively) and for a significantly longer duration (median, 18.3 vs 13.1 hours; P<.001) in patients in the upstream group compared with the deferred group. Composite ischemia at 30 days occurred in 7.9% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 7.1% of patients assigned to upstream administration (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.29; P = .044 for noninferiority; P = .13 for superiority); as such, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. Deferred use compared with upstream use resulted in reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding (4.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .009 for superiority) and similar rates of net clinical outcomes (11.7% vs 11.7%; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .93 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, deferring the routine upstream use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration in the cardiac catheterization laboratory only to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a numerical increase in composite ischemia that, while not statistically significant, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority. This finding was offset by a significant reduction in major bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158