Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): validation study for vascular dementia

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the MMSE. The aim of the present study was to validate the MoCA as well as its short version, which was proposed by the NINDS-CSN VCI Harmonization Standards for screening Vascular Dementia (VaD) patients. The results, based on a homogeneous sample of 34 VaD patients, indicate that the MoCA is a psychometrically valid and reliable instrument for cognitive screening in VaD patients, showing excellent discriminant validity. Both the full and short versions of the MoCA had excellent diagnostic accuracy in discriminating VaD patients, exhibiting an area under curve (AUC) higher than the MMSE [AUC(MoCA full version) = .950; 95% IC = .868-.988; AUC(MoCA short version) = .936; 95% IC = .849-.981; AUC(MMSE) = .860; 95% IC = .754-.932]. With a cutoff below 17 on the MoCA full version and 8 on the short version, the results for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and classification accuracy were superior compared to the MMSE. In conclusion, both versions of the MoCA are valid, reliable, sensitive and accurate screening instruments for VaD patients.

Heart Transplantation in Patients Older than 65 Years: Worthwhile or Wastage of Organs?

BACKGROUND: Patients older than 65 years have traditionally not been considered candidates for heart transplantation. However, recent studies have shown similar survival. We evaluated immediate and medium-term results in patients older than 65 years compared with younger patients. METHODS: From November 2003 to December 2013, 258 patients underwent transplantation. Children and patients with other organ transplantations were excluded from this study. Recipients were divided into two groups: 45 patients (18%) aged 65 years and older (Group A) and 203 patients (81%) younger than 65 years (Group B). RESULTS: Patients differed in age (67.0 ± 2.2 vs. 51.5 ± 9.7 years), but gender (male 77.8 vs. 77.3%; p = 0.949) was similar. Patients in Group A had more cardiovascular risk factors and ischemic cardiomyopathy (60 vs. 33.5%; p < 0.001). Donors to Group A were older (38.5 ± 11.3 vs. 34.0 ± 11.0 years; p = 0.014). Hospital mortality was 0 vs. 5.9% (p = 0.095) and 1- and 5-year survival were 88.8 ± 4.7 versus 86.8 ± 2.4% and 81.5 ± 5.9 versus 77.2 ± 3.2%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 2.7 versus 4.5 ± 3.1 years. Incidence of cellular/humoral rejection was similar, but incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy was higher (15.6 vs. 7.4%; p = 0.081). Incidence of diabetes de novo was similar (p = 0.632), but older patients had more serious infections in the 1st year (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Heart transplantation in selected older patients can be performed with survival similar to younger patients, hence should not be restricted arbitrarily. Incidence of infections, graft vascular disease, and malignancies can be reduced with a more personalized approach to immunosuppression. Allocation of donors to these patients does not appear to reduce the possibility of transplanting younger patients.