Cognitive Trajectories After Postoperative Delirium: Lessons Learned After 6 Years of Follow-Up in the SAGES Cohort
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract The Successful Aging after Elective Surgery (SAGES) cohort is the longest-running prospective study of cognitive trajectories, examining how delirium can influence long-term cognitive outcomes. Two major papers from the SAGES research group — Inouye et al. (2016) and Kunicki et al. (2023) — demonstrate that delirium is associated with accelerated cognitive aging. Using a measure of general cognitive performance, derived using latent variable modeling of 11 cognitive tests spanning domains of attention, memory, language, and executive functioning, Inouye et al. (2016) illustrates a multifaceted post-surgical trajectory which is characterized by a decline one month after surgery, recovery to above the preoperative baseline at two months, followed by a gradual decline. Kunicki et al. (2023) further highlights the complexity of this trajectory by showing there is an additional period of little change until 36 months, but overall that the rate of cognitive decline in patients who experienced delirium is 40% faster than in those who did not. This symposium will review the key findings from these papers, emphasizing how delirium has a lasting and significant impact on cognitive trajectories. Lessons learned from these analyses, along with potential directions for future research, will also be discussed.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cognitive Trajectories After Postoperative Delirium: Lessons Learned After 6 Years of Follow-Up in the SAGES Cohort
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.