Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prevalence and severity of cognitive dysfunction in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): clinical and cognitive impact at 1 year

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

We estimated the proportion and severity of cognitive disorders in an unselected population of patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Second, we describe clinical and cognitive outcomes at 1 year.

Methods

Eligible patients were aged ≥ 70 years, with symptomatic aortic stenosis and an indication for TAVI. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess cognitive dysfunction (CD), defined as no CD if score ≥ 26, mild CD if 18–25; moderate CD if 10–18, and severe CD if < 10. We assessed survival and in-hospital complications at 6 months and 1 year.

Results

Between June 2019 and October 2020, 105 patients were included; 21 (20%) did not undergo TAVI, and thus, 84 were analyzed; median age 85 years, 53.6% females, median EuroScore 11.5%. Median MoCA score was 22 (19–25); CD was excluded in 18 (21%), mild in 50 (59.5%), moderate in 15 (19%) and severe in 1. Mean MoCA score at follow-up was 21.9(± 4.69) and did not differ significantly from baseline (21.79 (± 4.61), p = 0.73). There was no difference in success rate, in-hospital complications, or death across CD categories.

Conclusion

The clinical course of patients with mild or moderate CD is not different at 1 year after TAVI compared to those without cognitive dysfunction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

All the data produced in this study are reported in the present article.

References

  1. d’Arcy JL, Coffey S, Loudon MA (2016) Large-scale community echocardiographic screening reveals a major burden of undiagnosed valvular heart disease in older people: the OxVALVE Population Cohort Study. Eur Heart J 37:3515–3522. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw229

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Afilalo J, Lauck, S Kim DH (2017) Frailty in older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement: the FRAILTY-AVR study. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Afilalo J, Mottillo S, Eisenberg MJ (2012) Addition of frailty and disability to cardiac surgery risk scores identifies elderly patients at high risk of mortality or major morbidity. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 5:222–228. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.963157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Okonkwo OC, Cohen RA, Gunstad J (2010) Longitudinal trajectories of cognitive decline among older adults with cardiovascular disease. Cerebrovasc Dis 30:362–373. https://doi.org/10.1159/000319564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jutkowitz E, Gozalo P, Trivedi A (2020) The effect of physical and cognitive impairments on caregiving. Med Care 58:601–609. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001323

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lowenstern A, Wang TY (2019) Rethinking cognitive impairment in the management of older patients with cardiovascular disease. J Am Heart Assoc 8:e011968. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.011968

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F (2021) 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yanagisawa R, Tanaka M, Yashima F (2018) Frequency and consequences of cognitive impairmentin patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 122:844–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.05.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghezzi ES, Ross TJ, Davis D (2020) Meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors for cognitive decline and improvement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 127:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.04.023

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ciesielska N, Sokołowski R, Mazur E (2016) Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test better suited than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) detection among people aged over 60? Meta-analysis Psychiatr Pol 50:1039–1052. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/45368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V (2005) The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Angermann S, Baumann M, Steubl D (2017) Cognitive impairment in hemodialysis patients: Implementation of cut-off values for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-test for feasible screening. PLoS ONE 12:e0184589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Carson N, Leach L, Murphy KJ (2018) A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 33:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomann AE, Berres M, Goettel N (2020) Enhanced diagnostic accuracy for neurocognitive disorders: a revised cut-off approach for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Alz Res Therapy 12:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00603-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tu Q-Y, Jin H, Ding B-R (2013) Reliability, validity, and optimal cutoff score of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (changsha version) in ischemic cerebrovascular disease patients of Hunan province, China. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Extra 3:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1159/000346845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Auffret V, Campelo-Parada F, Regueiro A (2016) Serial changes in cognitive function following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 68:2129–2141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rudolph JL, Schreiber KA, Culley DJ (2010) Measurement of post-operative cognitive dysfunction after cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 54:663–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02236.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rouleau I, Salmon DP, Butters N (1992) Quantitative and qualitative analyses of clock drawings in Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s disease. Brain Cogn 18:70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2626(92)90112-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Siciliano M, Santangelo G, D’Iorio A (2016) Rouleau version of the Clock Drawing Test: age- and education-adjusted normative data from a wide Italian sample. Clin Neuropsychol 30:1501–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1241893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Genereux P, Piazza N, Alu MC (2021) Valve academic research consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. J Am Coll Cardiol 77:2717–2746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fanning JP, Wesley AJ, Walters DL (2016) Neurological injury in intermediate-risk transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Heart Assoc 5:e004203. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.004203

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shulman KI (2000) Clock-drawing: is it the ideal cognitive screening test? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 15:548–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1166(200006)15:6<548::aid-gps242>3.0.co;2-u

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wiggins ME, Dion C, Formanski E (2021) Proof of concept: digital clock drawing behaviors prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement may predict length of hospital stay and cost of care. Explor Med 2:110–121. https://doi.org/10.37349/emed.2021.00036

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Bobet AS, Brouessard C, Le Tourneau T, Manigold T, de Decker L, Boureau AS (2021) Length of stay in older patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: value of a geriatric approach. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghanem A, Kocurek J, Sinning J-M (2013) Cognitive trajectory after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 6:615–624. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.000429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lansky AJ, Brown D, Pena C (2016) Neurologic complications of unprotected transcatheter aortic valve implantation (from the Neuro-TAVI Trial). Am J Cardiol 118:1519–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bosch J, O’Donnell M, Swaminathan B (2019= Effects of blood pressure and lipid lowering on cognition: results from the HOPE-3 study. Neurology 92:e1435–e1446. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007174WNL.0000000000007174[pii]

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Gluhm S, Goldstein J, Loc K (2013) Cognitive performance on the mini-mental state examination and the montreal cognitive assessment across the healthy adult lifespan. Cogn Behav Neurol 26:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0b013e31828b7d26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Schoenenberger AW, Zuber C, Moser A (2016) Evolution of cognitive function after transcatheter aortic valve implantation Circ Cardiovasc Interv 9:e003590. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.003590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Baran J, Przewłocki T, Podolec J (2021) Assessment of the Willis circle flow changes and the severity of degenerative aortic stenosis and cognitive impairment. Kardiol Pol 79:46–52. https://doi.org/10.33963/KP.15642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Langa KM, Levine DA (2014) The diagnosis and management of mild cognitive impairment: a clinical review. JAMA 312:2551–2561. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.13806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was partially funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Edwards Lifesciences (THV-I16-102/THV-I18-122)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Besancon, 25000, Besancon, France

    Charles Monnin, Matthieu Besutti, Fiona Ecarnot, Benoit Guillon, Marion Chatot, Romain Chopard, Mohamed Yahia, Nicolas Meneveau & François Schiele

  2. EA3920, University of Franche-Comté, 25000, Besancon, France

    Fiona Ecarnot, Romain Chopard, Nicolas Meneveau & François Schiele

Authors
  1. Charles Monnin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthieu Besutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fiona Ecarnot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Benoit Guillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marion Chatot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Romain Chopard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohamed Yahia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicolas Meneveau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. François Schiele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: CM, FE, and FS; methodology: CM, FE, and FS; formal analysis: CM, FS, and RC; investigation: CM, FE, MB, BG, MC, MY, RC, FS, and NM; data curation: CM; writing—original draft preparation: CM, FE, and FS; writing—review and editing: CM, FE, and FS All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona Ecarnot.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Persons participating in biomedical research (CPP Sud Est VI, Clermont Ferrand) on 21 May 2019 under the number AU1510, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT04564534.

Informed consent

All the patients provided informed consent before inclusion.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 538 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monnin, C., Besutti, M., Ecarnot, F. et al. Prevalence and severity of cognitive dysfunction in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): clinical and cognitive impact at 1 year. Aging Clin Exp Res 34, 1873–1883 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-022-02102-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-022-02102-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation