Next Article in Journal
CFD Numerical Simulation in Building Drainage Stacks as an Infection Pathway of COVID-19
Next Article in Special Issue
Information Seeking and Processing during the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Taiwan: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Informational Subjective Norms
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of an Interaction and Cognitive Engagement-Based Blended Teaching on Obstetric and Gynecology Nursing Course
Previous Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Children with Developmental Disabilities: Service Disruption, Transition to Telehealth, and Child Wellbeing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 12
10.3390/ijerph19127473
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Functional Capacity of COVID-19 Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up

by
Rodrigo Núñez-Cortés
1,2,3,
Constanza Malhue-Vidal
3,
Florencia Gath
3,
Gonzalo Valdivia-Lobos
3,
Rodrigo Torres-Castro
2,4,
Carlos Cruz-Montecinos
1,2,5,
Francisco M. Martinez-Arnau
1,
Sofía Pérez-Alenda
1,
Rubén López-Bueno
6,7,* and
Joaquín Calatayud
7,8
1
Physiotherapy in Motion Multispeciality Research Group (PTinMOTION), Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8380286, Chile
3
Service of Physical Therapy, Hospital Clínico La Florida, Santiago 8240000, Chile
4
Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), 08036 Barcelona, Spain
5
Section of Research, Innovation and Development in Kinesiology, Kinesiology Unit, San José Hospital, Santiago 8380286, Chile
6
Department of Physical Medicine and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
7
National Research Centre for the Working Environment, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
8
Exercise Intervention for Health Research Group (EXINH-RG), Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(12), 7473; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127473
Submission received: 22 May 2022 / Revised: 16 June 2022 / Accepted: 16 June 2022 / Published: 18 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health-Related Behaviours during the COVID-19 Pandemic)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: To determine the association between the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score after discharge with 6-min walk test (6MWT) 1 year after discharge in a cohort of COVID-19 survivors. Methods: In this prospective study, data were collected from a consecutive sample of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The CCI score was calculated from the comorbidity data. The main outcome was the distance walked in the 6MWT at 1 year after discharge. Associations between CCI and meters covered in the 6MWT were assessed through crude and adjusted linear regressions. The model was adjusted for possible confounding factors (sex, days of hospitalization, and basal physical capacity through sit-to-stand test one month after discharge). Results: A total of 41 patients were included (mean age 58.8 ± 12.7 years, 20/21 men/women). A significant association was observed between CCI and 6MWT (meters): (i) crude model: β = −18.7, 95% CI = −34.7 to −2.6, p < 0.05; (ii) model adjusted for propensity score including sex, days of hospitalization, and sit-to-stand: β = −23.0, 95% CI = −39.1 to −6.8, p < 0.05. Conclusions: A higher CCI score after discharge indicates worse performance on the 6MWT at 1-year follow-up in COVID-19 survivors. The CCI score could also be used as a screening tool to make important clinical decisions.

1. Introduction

Although complete vaccination against COVID-19 has covered nearly 60% of the world’s population, the pandemic continues to grow, and cumulative cases have exceeded 520 million worldwide, with more than 6 million deaths reported [1]. In those who survive, a wide variety of sequelae have been described [2]. Among others, survivors may experience fatigue, persistent respiratory symptoms, decreased physical function, and decreased quality of life for up to 6 months post-infection [3].
In general, individuals with comorbidities are more affected by COVID-19 and have worse clinical outcomes [4]. However, due to the high prevalence of impaired skeletal muscle strength and physical performance in patients without previous disabilities recovering from COVID-19 [5], it remains a challenge for rehabilitators to objectify and stratify changes in physical function for future decision making. A valid, reliable, and simple tool for risk stratifying patients based on comorbidities is the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) [6], which has been widely used as a predictor of prognosis and death in patients with COVID-19 [7,8]. A recent meta-analysis showed that an increase in CCI score was prognostically associated with mortality and poor outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 [9]. In particular, CCI score ≥ 3 is associated with increased mortality and disease severity in patients with COVID-19 [9], albeit it is unknown whether this risk factor could be useful in determining physical function and quality of life one year after discharge.
To evaluate functional capacity in patients with chronic respiratory disease, the 6-min walk test (6MWT) is the reference validated test [10]. Previous studies found that distance walked on the 6MWT is independently associated with all-cause mortality in older adults and patients with chronic respiratory disease [11,12]. However, the 6MWT needs time, close supervision, and specific technical requirements (e.g., a 30-m corridor) [10]. Additionally, during the first weeks after discharge most of the COVID-19 survivors are unable to complete the 6MWT [13]. Therefore, other clinical tests have been alternatively considered to measure the functional consequences of hospitalization after COVID-19, such as the one-minute sit-to-stand (1-STS) test, the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) or the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) [14,15,16].
Function and mortality are related, and comorbidity burden may be used to predict both outcomes [17]. In this context, the CCI score might be used as a screening tool to make important clinical decisions, such as the allocation of scarce healthcare resources for the rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors. Importantly, this questionnaire can be administered to several patients at a time (which can be especially relevant during a pandemic and when there are limited resources) and could be used in frail patients with reduced physical capacity to perform demanding physical tests [18,19]. This could accelerate decision-making to start with the recovery process, guiding rehabilitators to provide more specialized interventions in COVID-19 survivors. The main objective of this study was to determine the association between the CCI score after discharge with 6MWT 1 year after discharge in a cohort of COVID-19 survivors. The secondary objective was to assess changes over time in functional capacity using the 1-STS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Setting, Design, and Participants

A prospective cohort study was conducted in a consecutive sample of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection discharged from Hospital Clínico la Florida (Santiago, Chile) between 4 August 2020 and 11 September 2020. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (I) patients over 18 years of age; (II) diagnosis of COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR); and (III) outpatients discharged from the hospital one month prior to study entry. Participants with severe mobility reduction or hemodynamic instability (systolic blood pressure > 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 100 mmHg) were excluded. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Clinical Hospital la Florida (Santiago, Chile, HLF07102020RNC). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants during enrolment. This study was performed according to the guidelines “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) [20].

2.2. Data Collection (One Month after Discharge)

One month after discharge, patients were admitted to the follow-up program at the hospital. At admission, demographic characteristics (age, sex, and body mass index), days of hospitalization, and underlying comorbidities were collected. The functional capacity was measured by the number of repetitions the subjects were able to sit and stand during the 1-STS; tests were performed with the same standard height chair (46 cm) without armrests placed against the wall [21]. Subjects could not use their hands/arms to push the chair seat or their body. Patients were instructed to complete as many sitting and standing cycles as possible in 1 min at a self-paced pace. Reference values based on the healthy adult population previously reported by Strassmann et al. were used [22].

2.3. Charlson Comorbidity Index (One Month after Discharge)

The CCI score was calculated from the following information: age-based scoring starts at ≥50 years, with an increase of one point for every 10 years; history of definite or probable myocardial infarction (+1 point); congestive heart failure (+1 point); peripheral vascular disease (+1 point); cerebrovascular disease (+1 point); dementia (+1 point), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (+1 point); connective tissue disease (+1 point); peptic ulcer disease (+1 point); liver disease (mild, +1 point; moderate to severe, +3 point); diabetes mellitus (+1 point); hemiplegia (+2 point); moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (+2 point); solid tumor (localized, +2 point; metastasis, +6 point); leukemia (+2 point); malignant lymphoma (+2 point); and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (+6 point) [6]. Data were collected by one researcher and then verified by a second researcher.

2.4. Follow-Up

All patients were admitted to a home rehabilitation program, which included 7–10 therapeutic exercise sessions over 3–4 weeks. Each session lasted approximately 30 min and included breathing exercises, walking, and functional exercises of the upper and lower extremities, depending on the patients’ need and tolerance. After completing the rehabilitation program, participants received printed material with recommendations for continuing with general mobility exercises (gluteal isometrics, squats with upper limb support, and static walking). One year after discharge, patients returned to the hospital outpatient unit to assess functional capacity using the 6MWT. In addition, the 1-STS was re-evaluated under the same conditions as the first evaluation.

2.5. 6-Minute Walk Test (1 Year after Discharge)

The 6MWT test was conducted following international recommendations [10]. Participants were instructed to walk as far as possible in a 30-m indoor corridor, pausing to rest if needed. The modified Borg scale (0–10) was used to measure dyspnea and fatigue immediately before and after the test. SpO2 and HR were continuously monitored during the test. To estimate the predicted 6MWT distance we used the reference values for 6MWT in the Chilean adult population [23]. The formula for estimating the distance traveled was: (i) women: 457 − 3.46 × age (years) + 2.61 × height (cm) − 1.57 × weight (kg) ± 53; (ii) men: 530 − 3.31 × age (years) + 2.36 × height (cm) − 1.49 × weight (kg) ± 58 [23].

2.6. Statistical Analyses

We conducted statistical analyses through Stata version 16.1 (StataCorp, Texas, TX, USA). The Shapiro test served to check normality. Associations between CCI (exhibition) and meters covered in the 6MWT (outcome) were assessed through crude and adjusted linear regressions. Due to the low number of individuals, we created a propensity score index that accounted for potential confounders, such as sex, days of hospitalization due to COVID-19, and previous functional capacity (i.e., 1-STS one-month after discharge), for model adjustment. We checked the final model using additional variables without improving the accuracy of the obtained estimations. Estimations are provided as beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Finally, we created a scatterplot showing the data distribution of the two examined variables with a regression line and a shadowed 95% CI. Differences over time for 1-STS were evaluated using the Wilcoxon test or paired t-test according to the distribution of the data. Levels of significance were set at p < 0.05. Post hoc power (1-β err prob) was calculated with the G*Power 3.1 program, version 3.1.9.2 (Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany), using the linear multiple regression statistical test (single regression coefficient). Input data were: one-tailed; effect size f2 = 0.59; α err prob = 0.05; total sample = 41; and number of predictors = 1.

3. Results

A total of 45 patients met the selection criteria and were evaluated one month after discharge. Four patients were lost to 1-year follow-up (Figure 1). Participants with missing data in any study variable were discarded for the study. Finally, a sample of 41 COVID-19 survivors was analyzed. The median age was 58.8 ± 12.7 years, and 20 (48.8%) patients were male. Seventy percent of the patients had values below the estimated 6MWT value. The characteristics of COVID-19 survivors at hospital discharge and at 1-year follow-up are shown in Table 1.
A significant association was observed between CCI and distance covered (meters) in the 6MWT one year after hospitalization for COVID-19: (i) crude model: R2 = 0.1022, β = −18.7, 95% CI = −34.7 to −2.6, p < 0.05; (ii) adjusted model: R2 = 0.3286, β = −23.0, 95% CI = −39.1 to −6.8, p < 0.05 (Table S1). Figure 2 shows the scatter plot with the regression line for the crude association between CCI and 6MWT. Fifty-two percent of COVID-19 survivors had a CCI score ≥ 3 (high comorbidity burden). The post hoc power (1-β err prob) of association between the CCI and the 6MWT was 99%. Finally, a significant increase in the 1-STS of 3.5 repetitions was observed during follow-up (p < 0.05). However, 1-year after discharge, 85% of participants were below the 25th percentile, relative to baseline values [22].

4. Discussion

The results of this study showed that there is a significant association between CCI and distance on the 6MWT in COVID-19 survivors 1 year after discharge. Specifically, a higher CCI score one month after discharge was an indicator of worse performance on the 6MWT at 1-year follow-up. Although we observed a small improvement in 1-STS over time, 70% of patients had values below the estimated 6MWT value at one year after discharge. Given that most patients are unable to perform the 6MWT at discharge or one month after discharge, the 1-STS appears to be a reliable functional test that can provide a parameter to monitor functional status over time. However, considering that the 6MWT is the gold standard for assessing functional capacity, it may provide more relevant information when patients are already able to perform the test [10]. Thus, the CCI score is a good estimate of long-term physical function. Our linear regression model assumes that a one-point increase in the CCI score reduces 23 m in the 6MWT. To date, this is the first study investigating an affordable tool to assess long-term physical recovery among previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
These findings are not unexpected, as comorbidity is a clinical condition of exposure that influences different health outcomes [24]. Although CCI was initially developed to predict mortality, it has been shown to predict functional outcomes in other populations [19]. For example, the CCI score was independently associated with functional outcome and mortality six months after a cerebrovascular event (i.e., ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage) [25]. Even in stroke patients, it appears to be better than pathology-specific comorbidity indexes [26]. In contrast, Groll et al. [27] reported that CCI would not be related to long-term physical function in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. However, physical function was not objectively measured in their study since they used the SF-36 physical function subscale [27].
Although the use of the 6MWT in COVID-19 survivors is scarce, the distance walked in the 6MWT is an independent risk factor influencing activities of daily living and all-cause mortality in patients with chronic respiratory disease and in older adults [11,12,28]. Thus, these findings support evidence suggesting that function and mortality are related, and that comorbidity burden can be used to predict both outcomes [17].
Our results suggest that physical function 1 year after discharge from COVID-19 could be estimated using the CCI score. Our linear regression model assumes that a one-point increase in the CCI score reduces 23 m in the 6MWT. Since the R2 of the linear regression was small (R2 = 0.33), there might be other factors not considered by our study that influence 6MWT at 1-year follow-up after COVID-19. However, the CCI proved to be an important parameter to guide clinical management at discharge. Given the large number of patients with sequelae after COVID-19, the CCI could be used to discriminate against patients who may develop long-term limitations in their physical function. In addition, the CCI could be added to follow-up programs, as it could help discriminate those patients who could benefit from interventions, such as physical rehabilitation or at least closer follow-up. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams should also be aware of the impact of social determinants of health on the severity of COVID-19 to promote strategies that improve the long-term functionality of these patients [29].
Our results indicate that patients with a higher comorbidity burden had poorer performance on the 6MWT. These results could be partly explained by the association between comorbidity burden and sarcopenia [30,31]. In particular, Gong et al. [32] found a strong and significant negative correlation between CCI and skeletal muscle index/gait speed in older adults. In fact, indirect evidence of the relationship between skeletal muscle function and the 6MWT could be the effectiveness of resistance training to improve this test in patients with COPD [33]. In addition, a recent meta-analysis found that pre-existing comorbidity, together with female sex and respiratory distress syndrome, were associated with reduced 6MWT results after critical illness [34].
The CCI score may be especially useful when there are time constraints and limited healthcare resources or when the patient cannot perform demanding physical tests, such as the 6MWT, after hospitalization for COVID-19. For example, the CCI could be prioritized among frail patients with limited balance or muscle strength at increased risk of falling or patients with hemodynamic instability (e.g., a systolic blood pressure > 180 mmHg) [10]. On the other hand, considering that the incidence of comorbidity increases significantly with age in older adults [35] and that disability in this group is much higher when two or more diseases coexist [36], the CCI may be used in the early phases of rehabilitation planning after hospitalization for COVID-19.
The strengths of our study comprise the use of a monitored sample of confirmed COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization with 1-year follow-up. We also used validated tools to assess exposition, outcome, and covariates. However, the findings of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the sample size is small, which may lead to a certain degree of selection bias, but still enough to detect relevant changes in the examined variables, and the findings are consistent. To overcome this limitation, the post hoc power of the study was calculated and was high (99%). Second, there is still the possibility of a residual confounding bias (e.g., due to lack of adjustment for physical activity variables), although the chance that this can significantly vary the findings is low due to the use of relevant potential confounders (e.g., 1-STS). Finally, due to the specific context where the study was conducted, generalizations over other populations should be cautiously taken. Future studies should also assess whether there is a prospective association between other measures that help to predict the recovery in COVID-19 survivors (e.g., skeletal muscle mass evaluation).

5. Conclusions

A higher CCI score one month after discharge indicates worse performance on the 6MWT at 1-year follow-up in COVID-19 survivors. The CCI score could also be used as a screening tool to make important clinical decisions, such as the allocation of scarce healthcare resources or to accelerate and personalize rehabilitation.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19127473/s1, Table S1: Association between Charlson Comorbidity Index and distance covered (meters) in the 6MWT test after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.N.-C., R.L.-B. and J.C.; Methodology, R.N.-C. and R.L.-B.; Validation, R.N.-C., C.M.-V., F.G., G.V.-L., R.T.-C., C.C.-M., F.M.M.-A., S.P.-A., R.L.-B. and J.C.; Formal Analysis, R.N.-C. and R.L.-B.; Data Curation, R.N.-C., C.M.-V., F.G. and G.V.-L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, R.N.-C., R.L.-B. and J.C.; Writing—Review and Editing, R.N.-C., C.M.-V., F.G., G.V.-L., R.T.-C., C.C.-M., F.M.M.-A., S.P.-A., R.L.-B. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Rubén López-Bueno is supported by European Union—NextGeneration-EU. Rodrigo Núñez-Cortés is supported by the National Research and Development Agency of Chile (ANID/2020-72210026). The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Clinical Hospital La Florida (Santiago, Chile, HLF07102020RNC).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anon. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://covid19.who.int (accessed on 11 May 2022).
  2. Montani, D.; Savale, L.; Noel, N.; Meyrignac, O.; Colle, R.; Gasnier, M.; Corruble, E.; Beurnier, A.; Jutant, E.-M.; Pham, T.; et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Eur. Respir. Rev. 2022, 31, 210185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sanchez-Ramirez, D.; Normand, K.; Zhaoyun, Y.; Torres-Castro, R. Long-term impact of COVID-19: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Guan, W.-J.; Liang, W.-H.; Zhao, Y.; Liang, H.-R.; Chen, Z.-S.; Li, Y.-M.; Liu, X.-Q.; Chen, R.-C.; Tang, C.-L.; Wang, T.; et al. Comorbidity and its impact on 1590 patients with COVID-19 in China: A nationwide analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 55, 2000547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Paneroni, M.; Simonelli, C.; Saleri, M.; Bertacchini, L.; Venturelli, M.; Troosters, T.; Ambrosino, N.; Vitacca, M. Muscle strength and physical performance in patients without previous disabilities recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 100, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Charlson, M.E.; Pompei, P.; Ales, K.L.; MacKenzie, C.R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 1987, 40, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Christensen, D.M.; Strange, J.E.; Gislason, G.; Torp-Pedersen, C.; Gerds, T.; Fosbøl, E.; Phelps, M.D. Charlson comorbidity index score and risk of severe outcome and death in Danish COVID-19 patients. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 2801–2803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Varol, Y.; Hakoglu, B.; Cirak, A.K.; Polat, G.; Komurcuoglu, B.; Akkol, B.; Atasoy, C.; Bayramic, E.; Balci, G.; Ataman, S.; et al. The impact of charlson comorbidity index on mortality from SARS-CoV—2 virus infection and A novel COVID—19 mortality index: CoLACD. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e13858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kuswardhani, R.T.; Henrina, J.; Pranata, R.; Lim, M.A.; Lawrensia, S.; Suastika, K. Charlson comorbidity index and a composite of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020, 14, 2103–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Holland, A.E.; Spruit, M.A.; Troosters, T.; Puhan, M.A.; Pepin, V.; Saey, D.; McCormack, M.C.; Carlin, B.W.; Sciurba, F.C.; Pitta, F.; et al. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: Field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2014, 44, 1428–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caminati, A.; Bianchi, A.; Cassandro, R.; Mirenda, M.R.; Harari, S. Walking distance on 6-MWT is a prognostic factor in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir. Med. 2009, 103, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Yazdanyar, A.; Aziz, M.M.; Enright, P.L.; Edmundowicz, D.; Boudreau, R.; Sutton-Tyrell, K.; Kuller, L.; Newman, A.B. Association between 6-minute walk test and all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease–specific mortality, and incident coronary heart disease. J. Aging Health 2014, 26, 583–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Curci, C.; Pisano, F.; Bonacci, E.; Camozzi, D.M.; Ceravolo, C.; Bergonzi, R.; De Franceschi, S.; Moro, P.; Guarnieri, R.; Ferrillo, M.; et al. Early rehabilitation in post-acute COVID-19 patients: Data from an Italian COVID-19 rehabilitation unit and proposal of a treatment protocol of a treatment protocol. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2020, 56, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Núñez-Cortés, R.; Rivera-Lillo, G.; Arias-Campoverde, M.; Soto-García, D.; García-Palomera, R.; Torres-Castro, R. Use of sit-to-stand test to assess the physical capacity and exertional desaturation in patients post COVID-19. Chronic Respir. Dis. 2021, 18, 1479973121999205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Belli, S.; Balbi, B.; Prince, I.; Cattaneo, D.; Masocco, F.; Zaccaria, S.; Bertalli, L.; Cattini, F.; Lomazzo, A.; Negro, F.D.; et al. Low physical functioning and impaired performance of activities of daily life in COVID-19 patients who survived hospitalisation. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 2002096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Coovadia, H.; Jewkes, R.; Barron, P.; Sanders, D.; McIntyre, D. How the COVID-19 infection tsunami revolutionized the work of respiratory physiotherapists: An experience from Northern Italy. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. Arch. 2020, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gabriel, S.E.; Crowson, C.S.; O’Fallon, W.M. A comparison of two comorbidity instruments in arthritis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1999, 52, 1137–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pencina, K.M.; Bhasin, S.; Luo, M.; Baggs, G.E.; Pereira, S.L.; Davis, G.J.; E Deutz, N.; Travison, T.G. Predictor biomarkers of nonelective hospital readmission and mortality in malnourished hospitalized older adults. J. Frailty Aging 2020, 9, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, A.; Pohlig, R.T.; Wright, T.; Kim, H.E.; Reisman, D.S. Beyond Physical Capacity: Factors Associated With Real-world Walking Activity After Stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 102, 1880–1887.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 18, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ozalevli, S.; Ozden, A.; Itil, O.; Akkoclu, A. Comparison of the Sit-to-Stand Test with 6 min walk test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir. Med. 2007, 101, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Strassmann, A.; Steurer-Stey, C.; Lana, K.D.; Zoller, M.; Turk, A.J.; Suter, P.; Puhan, M.A. Population-based reference values for the 1-min sit-to-stand test. Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 949–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Osses, A.R.; Yáñez, V.J.; Barría, P.P.; Palacios, M.S.; Dreyse, D.J.; Díaz, P.O.; Lisboa, B.C. Reference values for the 6-minutes walking test in healthy subjects 20–80 years old. Revista Medica Chile 2010, 138, 1124–1130. [Google Scholar]
  24. Powell, H.; Lim, L.L.-Y.; Heller, R.F. Accuracy of administrative data to assess comorbidity in patients with heart disease: An Australian perspective. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001, 54, 687–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Caballero, P.E.J.; Espuela, F.L.; Cuenca, J.C.P.; Moreno, J.M.R.; Zamorano, J.D.P.; Naranjo, I.C. Charlson comorbidity index in ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage as predictor of mortality and functional outcome after 6 months. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2013, 22, e214–e218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tessier, A.; Finch, L.; Daskalopoulou, S.S.; Mayo, N.E. Validation of the Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting functional outcome of stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 1276–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Groll, D.L.; Heyland, D.K.; Caeser, M.; Wright, J.G. Assessment of long-term physical function in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients: Comparison of the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Functional Comorbidity Index. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2006, 85, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ozsoy, I.; Kahraman, B.O.; Acar, S.; Ozalevli, S.; Akkoclu, A.; Savci, S. Factors influencing activities of daily living in subjects with COPD. Respir. Care 2019, 64, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Núñez-Cortés, R.; Ortega-Palavecinos, M.; Soto-Carmona, C.; Torres-Gangas, P.; Concha-Rivero, M.P.; Torres-Castro, R. Social determinants of health associated with severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Gac. Med. Mex. 2021, 157, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tan, L.F.; Lim, Z.Y.; Choe, R.; Seetharaman, S.; Merchant, R.A. Screening for frailty and sarcopenia among older persons in medical outpatient clinics and its associations with healthcare burden. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 583–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Maeda, K.; Akagi, J. Cognitive impairment is independently associated with definitive and possible sarcopenia in hospitalized older adults: The prevalence and impact of comorbidities. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 1048–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gong, G.; Wan, W.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Yin, J. Correlation between the Charlson comorbidity index and skeletal muscle mass/physical performance in hospitalized older people potentially suffering from sarcopenia. BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Ferté, J.-B.; Boyer, F.C.; Taiar, R.; Pineau, C.; Barbe, C.; Rapin, A. Impact of resistance training on the 6-minute walk test in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2022, 65, 101582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Parry, S.M.; Nalamalapu, S.R.; Nunna, K.; Rabiee, A.; Friedman, L.A.; Colantuoni, E.; Needham, D.M.; Dinglas, V.D. Six-minute walk distance after critical illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 36, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zemedikun, D.; Gray, L.J.; Khunti, K.; Davies, M.J.; Dhalwani, N.N. Patterns of Multimorbidity in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: An Analysis of the UK Biobank Data. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2018, 93, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bandeen-Roche, K.; Seplaki, C.; Huang, J.; Buta, B.; Kalyani, R.R.; Varadhan, R.; Xue, Q.-L.; Walston, J.D.; Kasper, J.D. Frailty in older adults: A nationally representative profile in the United States. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 2015, 70, 1427–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijerph 19 07473 g001 550
Figure 1. Patient flow diagram. Abbreviations: 1-STST: 1-min sit-to-stand; 6MWT, 6-min walk test; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index.
Figure 1. Patient flow diagram. Abbreviations: 1-STST: 1-min sit-to-stand; 6MWT, 6-min walk test; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index.
Ijerph 19 07473 g001
Ijerph 19 07473 g002 550
Figure 2. Scatter plot with regression line showing crude association between Charlson Comorbidity Index and distance covered (meters) in the 6MWT test one year after COVID-19 hospitalization.
Figure 2. Scatter plot with regression line showing crude association between Charlson Comorbidity Index and distance covered (meters) in the 6MWT test one year after COVID-19 hospitalization.
Ijerph 19 07473 g002
Table
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
CharacteristicTotal (n = 41)
Age (mean ± SD)58.8 ± 12.7
Sex, male, n (%)20 (48.8)
BMI (mean ± SD)30.7 ± 5.2
Invasive ventilation, n (%)12 (28.3)
Hospitalization days (mean ± SD)13.5 (4 to 55)
1-STS (repetitions)20 (12 to 29)
Comorbidities, n (%)
Myocardial infarction2 (4.9)
Congestive heart failure2 (4.9)
Peripheral vascular disease24 (58.5)
Cerebrovascular accident1 (2.4)
COPD4 (9.8)
Liver disease1 (2.4)
Diabetes mellitus14 (34.1)
Chronic kidney disease2 (4.9)
Cancer2 (4.9)
Charlson comorbidity index (points)2 (0 to 8)
One-year follow-up
1-STS (repetitions)23.5 (12 to 35)
6MWT (meters)443.5 (214 to 600)
6MWT (%predicted)80.5 ± 15
Abbreviations: 1-STST: 1-min sit-to-stand; 6MWT, 6-min walk test; BMI: body mass index; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Values are mean ± standard deviation, median (range) or percentages.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Núñez-Cortés, R.; Malhue-Vidal, C.; Gath, F.; Valdivia-Lobos, G.; Torres-Castro, R.; Cruz-Montecinos, C.; Martinez-Arnau, F.M.; Pérez-Alenda, S.; López-Bueno, R.; Calatayud, J. The Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Functional Capacity of COVID-19 Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127473

AMA Style

Núñez-Cortés R, Malhue-Vidal C, Gath F, Valdivia-Lobos G, Torres-Castro R, Cruz-Montecinos C, Martinez-Arnau FM, Pérez-Alenda S, López-Bueno R, Calatayud J. The Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Functional Capacity of COVID-19 Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(12):7473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127473

Chicago/Turabian Style

Núñez-Cortés, Rodrigo, Constanza Malhue-Vidal, Florencia Gath, Gonzalo Valdivia-Lobos, Rodrigo Torres-Castro, Carlos Cruz-Montecinos, Francisco M. Martinez-Arnau, Sofía Pérez-Alenda, Rubén López-Bueno, and Joaquín Calatayud. 2022. "The Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Functional Capacity of COVID-19 Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 12: 7473. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127473

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop