Physical Function, Frailty, Cognition, Depression, and Quality of Life in Hospitalized Adults ≥60 Years With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older hospitalized acute decompensated heart failure (HF) patients have persistently poor outcomes and delayed recovery regardless of ejection fraction (EF). We hypothesized that impairments in physical function, frailty, cognition, mood, and quality of life (QoL) potentially contributing to poor clinical outcomes would be similarly severe in acute decompensated HF patients ≥60 years of age with preserved versus reduced EF (HFpEF and HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 202 consecutive older (≥60 years) hospitalized acute decompensated HF patients in a multicenter trial, we prospectively performed at baseline: short physical performance battery, 6-minute walk distance, frailty assessment, Geriatric Depression Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and QoL assessments. Older acute decompensated HFpEF (EF ≥45%, n=96) and HFrEF (EF <45%, n=106) patients had similar impairments in all physical function measures (short physical performance battery [5.9±0.3 versus 6.2±0.2]; 6-minute walk distance [184±10 versus 186±9 m]; and gait speed [0.60±0.02 versus 0.61±0.02 m/s]) and rates of frailty (55% versus 52%; P=0.70) and cognitive impairment (77% versus 81%; P=0.56) when adjusted for differences in sex, body mass index, and comorbidities. However, depression and QoL were consistently worse in HFpEF versus HFrEF. Depression was usually unrecognized clinically with 38% having Geriatric Depression Scale ≥5 and no documented history of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients ≥60 years hospitalized with acute decompensated HF patients have broad, marked impairments in physical function and high rates of frailty and impaired cognition: these impairments are similar in HFpEF versus HFrEF. Further, depression was common and QoL was reduced, and both were worse in HFpEF than HFrEF. Depression was usually unrecognized clinically. These findings suggest opportunities for novel interventions to improve these important patient-centered outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02196038.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".