@misc{EichlerVoellerReibisetal.2020,
  author    = {Eichler, Sarah and V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Reibis, Rona Katharina and Wegscheider, Karl and Butter, Christian and Harnath, Axel and Salzwedel, Annett},
  title     = {Geriatric or cardiac rehabilitation?},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-47395},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-473958},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background Aim of the study was to find predictors of allocating patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to geriatric (GR) or cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and describe this new patient group based on a differentiated characterization. Methods From 10/2013 to 07/2015, 344 patients with an elective TAVI were consecutively enrolled in this prospective multicentric cohort study. Before intervention, sociodemographic parameters, echocardiographic data, comorbidities, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), quality of life and frailty (score indexing activities of daily living [ADL], cognition, nutrition and mobility) were documented. Out of these, predictors for assignment to CR or GR after TAVI were identified using a multivariable regression model. Results After TAVI, 249 patients (80.7 ± 5.1 years, 59.0\% female) underwent CR (n = 198) or GR (n = 51). GR patients were older, less physically active and more often had a level of care, peripheral artery disease as well as a lower left ventricular ejection fraction. The groups also varied in 6MWD. Furthermore, individual components of frailty revealed prognostic impact: higher values in instrumental ADL reduced the probability for referral to GR (OR:0.49, p <  0.001), while an impaired mobility was positively associated with referral to GR (OR:3.97, p = 0.046). Clinical parameters like stroke (OR:0.19 of GR, p = 0.038) and the EuroSCORE (OR:1.04 of GR, p = 0.026) were also predictive. Conclusion Advanced age patients after TAVI referred to CR or GR differ in several parameters and seem to be different patient groups with specific needs, e.g. regarding activities of daily living and mobility. Thus, our data prove the eligibility of both CR and GR settings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EichlerVoellerReibisetal.2020,
  author    = {Eichler, Sarah and V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Reibis, Rona Katharina and Wegscheider, Karl and Butter, Christian and Harnath, Axel and Salzwedel, Annett},
  title     = {Geriatric or cardiac rehabilitation?},
  series = {BMC Cardiovascular Disorders},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {BMC Cardiovascular Disorders},
  publisher = {BioMed Central},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1471-2261},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12872-020-01452-x},
  pages     = {9},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background Aim of the study was to find predictors of allocating patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to geriatric (GR) or cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and describe this new patient group based on a differentiated characterization. Methods From 10/2013 to 07/2015, 344 patients with an elective TAVI were consecutively enrolled in this prospective multicentric cohort study. Before intervention, sociodemographic parameters, echocardiographic data, comorbidities, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), quality of life and frailty (score indexing activities of daily living [ADL], cognition, nutrition and mobility) were documented. Out of these, predictors for assignment to CR or GR after TAVI were identified using a multivariable regression model. Results After TAVI, 249 patients (80.7 ± 5.1 years, 59.0\% female) underwent CR (n = 198) or GR (n = 51). GR patients were older, less physically active and more often had a level of care, peripheral artery disease as well as a lower left ventricular ejection fraction. The groups also varied in 6MWD. Furthermore, individual components of frailty revealed prognostic impact: higher values in instrumental ADL reduced the probability for referral to GR (OR:0.49, p <  0.001), while an impaired mobility was positively associated with referral to GR (OR:3.97, p = 0.046). Clinical parameters like stroke (OR:0.19 of GR, p = 0.038) and the EuroSCORE (OR:1.04 of GR, p = 0.026) were also predictive. Conclusion Advanced age patients after TAVI referred to CR or GR differ in several parameters and seem to be different patient groups with specific needs, e.g. regarding activities of daily living and mobility. Thus, our data prove the eligibility of both CR and GR settings.},
  language  = {en}
}