Outpatient grip strength measurement predicts survival, perioperative adverse events, and nonhome discharge among patients with vascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes among patients with vascular disease. Grip strength measurement is a comparatively simple, quick, and inexpensive screening test for weakness (a component of frailty) that is potentially applicable to clinical practice. We hypothesized that grip strength and categorical weakness are associated with clinical outcomes among patients with vascular disease. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a longitudinal cohort study evaluating associations between grip strength measured during outpatient clinic visits for vascular disease and clinical outcomes, including survival and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients recruited from outpatient vascular surgery and/or vascular medicine clinics underwent dominant hand grip strength measurement using a hand dynamometer. Participants were categorized as weak based on grip strength, sex, and body mass index. Multivariable logistic models were used to evaluate perioperative outcomes. Mortality was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for sex, age, and operative intervention during follow-up. RESULTS: We enrolled 321 participants. The mean patients age was 69.0 ± 9.4 years, and 33% were women. Mean grip strength was 32.0 ± 12.1 kg, and 92 participants (29%) were categorized as weak. The median follow-up was 24.0 months. Adverse perioperative events occurred in 32 of 84 patients undergoing procedures. Grip strength was associated with decreased risk of perioperative adverse events (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41 per 12.7 kg increase; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.85; P = .0171) in a model adjusted for open versus endovascular procedure (HR, 12.75 for open; 95% CI, 2.54-63.90; P = .0020) and sex (HR, 3.05 for male; 95% CI, 0.75-12.4; P = .120). Grip strength was also associated with a lower risk of nonhome discharge (HR, 0.34 per 12.7 kg increase; 95% CI, 0.14-0.82; P = .016) adjusted for sex (HR, 2.14 for male; 95% CI, 0.48-9.50; P = .31) and open versus endovascular procedure (HR, 10.36 for open; 95% CI, 1.20-89.47; P = .034). No associations between grip strength and length of stay were observed. Mortality occurred in 48 participants (14.9%) during follow-up. Grip strength was inversely associated with mortality (HR, 0.46 per 12.5 kg increase; 95% CI, 0.29-0.73; P = .0009) in a model adjusted for sex (HR, 5.08 for male; 95% CI, 2.1-12.3; P = .0003), age (HR, 1.04 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08), and operative intervention during follow-up (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.71-2.52). Categorical weakness was also associated with mortality (HR, 1.81 vs nonfrail; P = .048) in a model adjusted for age (HR, 1.06 per year; P = .002) and surgical intervention (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-0.09; P = .331). CONCLUSIONS: Grip strength is associated with all-cause mortality, perioperative adverse events, and nonhome discharge among patients with vascular disease. These observations support the usefulness of grip strength as a simple and inexpensive risk screening tool for patients with vascular disease.

Grip strength measurement for frailty assessment in patients with vascular disease and associations with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is associated with adverse events, length of stay, and nonhome discharge after vascular surgery. Frailty measures based on walking-based tests may be impractical or invalid for patients with walking impairment from symptoms or sequelae of vascular disease. We hypothesized that grip strength is associated with frailty, comorbidity, and cardiac risk among patients with vascular disease. METHODS: Dominant hand grip strength was measured during ambulatory clinic visits among patients with vascular disease (abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA], carotid stenosis, and peripheral artery disease [PAD]). Frailty prevalence was defined on the basis of the 20th percentile of community-dwelling population estimates adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index. Associations between grip strength, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), and sarcopenia (based on total psoas area for patients with cross-sectional abdominal imaging) were evaluated using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Grip strength was measured in 311 participants; all had sufficient data for CCI calculation, 217 (69.8%) had sufficient data for RCRI, and 88 (28.3%) had cross-sectional imaging permitting psoas measurement. Eighty-six participants (27.7%) were categorized as frail on the basis of grip strength. Frailty was associated with CCI (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.57; P = .0002) in the multivariable model. Frail participants also had a higher average number of RCRI components vs nonfrail patients (mean ± standard deviation, 1.8 ± 0.8 for frail vs 1.5 ± 0.7 for nonfrail; P = .018); frailty was also associated with RCRI in the adjusted multivariable model (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.64; P = .008). Total psoas area was lower among patients categorized as frail vs nonfrail on the basis of grip strength (21.0 ± 6.6 vs 25.4 ± 7.4; P = .010). Each 10 cm2 increase in psoas area was associated with a 5.7 kg increase in grip strength in a multivariable model adjusting for age and gender (P < .0001). Adjusted least squares mean psoas diameter estimates were 25.5 ± 1.1 cm2 for participants with AAA, 26.7 ± 2.0 cm2 for participants with carotid stenosis, and 22.7 ± 0.8 cm2 for participants with PAD (P = .053 for PAD vs AAA; P = .057 for PAD vs carotid stenosis; and P = .564 for AAA vs carotid stenosis). CONCLUSIONS: Grip strength is useful for identifying frailty among patients with vascular disease. Frail status based on grip strength is associated with comorbidity, cardiac risk, and sarcopenia in this population. These findings suggest that grip strength may have utility as a simple and inexpensive risk screening tool that is easily implemented in ambulatory clinics, avoids the need for imaging, and overcomes possible limitations of walking-based measures. Lower mean psoas diameters among patients with PAD vs other diagnoses may warrant consideration of specific approaches to morphomic analysis.

Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia in the Setting of Occlusive Superior Mesenteric Artery Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular intervention is considered the first-line treatment for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) when feasible. Two-vessel revascularization is most definitive when celiac (CA) and superior mesenteric arteries (SMA) are diseased, but single-vessel intervention may be performed in patients with 2-vessel disease due to anatomic/technical factors. We evaluated anatomic predictors of clinical outcomes associated with endovascular treatment of CMI among patients with occlusive SMA lesions. METHODS: Patients with CMI treated with endovascular revascularization over 10 years were identified. Patients with SMA occlusions were selected for analysis. Between-group comparisons based on inclusion of an SMA revascularization were evaluated using t-test and chi-squared test. Freedom from symptomatic recurrence or repeat intervention was analyzed using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with CMI were analyzed. Sixteen (29.6%) patients had CA-only intervention, and 38 (70.4%) patients had SMA revascularization with or without CA intervention. No significant differences in demographics or comorbidity were identified between groups. In the CA-only intervention group, 8 of the 16 (50%) patients developed symptomatic recurrence compared with 8 of the 31 (21.1%) patients whose intervention included the SMA. Patients treated without SMA intervention also had decreased freedom from both symptomatic recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-8.6, P = 0.016) and repeat intervention (HR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8-16.3, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CMI and occlusive SMA lesions, SMA revascularization appears to be the key determinant for symptomatic outcomes and repeat intervention. Patient counseling should include potential future need for surgical revascularization if endovascular SMA treatment cannot be accomplished.