Additional Value of Mini-Cog© in Urogeriatric Patients Concurrently Screened by G8 Scores.

Background: Cognitive impairment is poorly addressed in G8 screening. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the additional value of Mini-Cog© in urogeriatric patients concurrently screened by G8 scores. Methods: Seventy-four consecutive urogeriatric patients aged 75 and above were evaluated. All patients underwent G8 and Mini-Cog© screening. Patients with a G8 score above 14 were considered geriatric "healthy or fit". A Mini-Cog© from four to five points was considered inconspicuous in screening for cognitive impairment. The additional information of a Mini-Cog© screening during G8 screening was evaluated by looking at G8 "fit and healthy" patients who had conspicuous Mini-Cog© tests and vice versa. Additionally, the results of the neuropsychological subitem "E" of the G8 score were compared with the results of the Mini-Cog© screening. Results: The mean age of the patients was 83 y (min. 75-max. 102). Sixty-one of the patients were males, and 13 were females. Twenty-nine of the patients had a normal G8 score and were considered "healthy or fit", and 45 were not. Forty-three of the patients had an inconspicuous Mini-Cog©, and 31 had a conspicuous Mini-Cog© of less than four points. The majority of G8 "healthy or fit" patients (n = 24/29) had an inconspicuous Mini-Cog© test. However, of them, five patients had a Mini-Cog© of less than four points, which is suspicious for cognitive disorders. Furthermore, of the 43 patients with a normal G8 subscore in item "E" of two points, 6 patients had a conspicuous Mini-Cog© of less than four points. Conclusions: As shown by the present study, the Mini-Cog© might extend the G8 screening with regard to the detection of cognitive functional impairments that are not detected by the G8 screening alone. It can be easily added to G8 screening.

Comparison of G8 and ISAR Screening Results in Geriatric Urology.

BACKGROUND: The G8 and ISAR scores are two different screening tools for geriatric risk factors and frailty. The aim of this study was to compare the G8 and ISAR screening results in a cohort of urogeriatric patients to help clinicians to better understand and choose between the two tests. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 100 patients at the age of 75 and above who were treated for different urological conditions. All routinely and prospectively underwent G8 and ISAR screening tests. A G8 score ≤ 14 and an ISAR score > 2 were considered positive. The results for the two tests were compared and correlated to clinical data. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 83 y (min. 75-max. 101); 78 of the patients were male, while 22 were female; 58 of the patients were G8-positive, while 42 were G8-negative; and 24 were ISAR-positive, while 76 ISAR were negative. All the ISAR-positive patients were also G8-positive. There was a significant negative correlation between the G8 and ISAR scores (r = -0.77, p < 0.001). Both tests correlated significantly with the Charlson comorbidity index, length of stay, number of coded diagnosis, and Braden score (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both tests are significantly correlated with each other and to clinical data related to geriatric frailty. However, the G8 score has a much higher rate of positive tests, which limits its use in daily routine, and the ISAR score is therefore preferable. For "fit" geriatric patients, however, a negative G8 score can be of great use as a confirmatory test for further decision making.