@article{HillDossowHeylandetal.2022,
  author    = {Hill, Aileen and Dossow, Vera von and Heyland, Daren K. and Rossaint, Rolf and Meybohm, Patrick and Fox, Henrik and Morshuis, Michiel and Elke, Gunnar and Panholzer, Bernd and Haneya, Assad and B{\"o}ning, Andreas and Niemann, Bernd and Zayat, Rashad and Moza, Ajay and Stoppe, Christian},
  title     = {Preoperative nutritional optimization and physical exercise for patients scheduled for elective implantation for a left-ventricular assist device — The PROPER-LVAD study},
  series = {Surgeries},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {Surgeries},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2673-4095},
  doi       = {10.3390/surgeries3040031},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288317},
  pages     = {284 -- 296},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Prehabilitation is gaining increasing interest and shows promising effects on short- and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing major surgery. The effect of multimodal, interdisciplinary prehabilitation has not yet been studied in patients with severe heart failure scheduled for the implantation of a left-ventricular assist device (LVAD). Methods: This randomized controlled multi-center study evaluates the effect of preoperative combined optimization of nutritional and functional status. Patients in the intervention group are prescribed daily in-bed cycling and oral nutrition supplements (ONS) from study inclusion until the day before LVAD-implantation. Patients in the control group receive standard of care treatment. The primary outcomes for the pilot study that involves 48 patients are safety (occurrence of adverse events), efficacy (group separation regarding the intake of macronutrients), feasibility of the trial protocol (compliance (percentage of received interventions) and confirmation of recruitment rates. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal measurements of muscle mass, muscle strength, physical function and quality of life, next to traditional clinical outcomes (30-day mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and number of complications and infections). If the pilot study is successful, a larger confirmatory, international multicenter study is warranted.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HillHeylandRossaintetal.2020,
  author    = {Hill, Aileen and Heyland, Daren K. and Rossaint, Rolf and Arora, Rakesh C. and Engelman, Daniel T. and Day, Andrew G. and Stoppe, Christian},
  title     = {Longitudinal outcomes in octogenarian critically ill patients with a focus on frailty and cardiac surgery},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm10010012},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-220064},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Cardiac surgery (CSX) can be lifesaving in elderly patients (age ≥ 80 years) but may still be associated with complications and functional decline. Frailty represents a determinant to outcomes in critically ill patients, but little is known about its influence on elderly CSX-patients. This is a secondary exploratory analysis of a multi-center, prospective observational cohort study of 610 elderly patients admitted to the ICU and followed for one year to document long-term outcomes. CSX-ICU-patients (n = 49) were compared to surgical ICU patients (n = 184) with regard to demographics, frailty, and outcomes. Of all surgical patients, 102 (43\%) were considered vulnerable or frail. The subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of time to discharge home (TTDH) for vulnerable/frail vs. fit/well patients was 0.54 (95\% confidence interval (CI), 0.34, 0.86, p = 0.007). The p-value for effect modification between surgery group (CSX vs. surgical ICU patients) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) group was not significant (p = 0.37) suggesting that the observed difference in the CFS effect between the CSX and surgical ICU patients is consistent with random error. A further subgroup analysis shows that among surgical ICU patients, the SHR of time to discharge home (TTDH) for vulnerable/frail vs. fit/well patients was 0.49 (95\% CI, 0.29, 0.83) while the corresponding SHR for CSX patients was 0.77 (0.32-1.88). In conclusion, preoperative frailty reduced the rate of discharge to home in both surgical and CSX patients, but a larger sample of CSX patients is needed to adequately address this question in this patient group.},
  language  = {en}
}