M Ritt1, C Schwarz, V Kronawitter, A Delinic, L C Bollheimer, K G Gassmann, C C Sieber. 1. Martin Ritt, Department of Internal Medicine III (Medicine of Ageing), Geriatrics Centre Erlangen, Hospital of the Congregation of St. Francis Sisters of Vierzehnheiligen, Rathsbergerstrasse 57, 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Tel: +49-(0)-9131 822 3702, Fax: +49-(0)-9131 822 3703, Email: Martin.Ritt@waldkrankenhaus.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are few data regarding the accuracy of short frailty tools as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes of older patients admitted to a geriatric ward. We therefore analyzed the accuracy of Rockwood et al's Clinical Frailty Scale and an easy and quick to perform operationalization of Fried et al's frailty phenotype, as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes in our cohort of patients. DESIGN: Prospective analysis with a follow-up period of 6 months. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 307 patients who were 65 years of age or older were included in the study. The patients were assessed in terms of the two frailty measures during their stay in a geriatric ward. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale and the frailty phenotype were both suitable for differentiating between patients who died due to any cause from those who survived during follow-up (primary outcome) (area under the ROC curves (AUC) values 0.867 (95% CI 0.807-0.926), p<0.001 and 0.754 (95% CI 0.688-0.821), p<0.001, respectively). Regarding the secondary outcomes: 1. unplanned admission to hospital and 2. a fall during follow-up, the Clinical Frailty Scale discriminated or tended to discriminate between patients to whom these criteria applied and those to whom they did not (AUC=0.569 (95% CI 0.502-0.636), p=0.046 and AUC=0.574 (95% CI 0.501-0.647), p=0.071, respectively). The frailty phenotype did not show such a differentiation when applied to secondary outcomes (AUC=0.500 (95% CI 0.432-0.568), p=0.994 and AUC=0.518 (95% CI 0.439-0.598), p=0.658, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both short frailty instruments are suitable predictors of mortality in older patients who were admitted to a geriatric ward. The Clinical Frailty Scale, but not the frailty phenotype, predicted at least some of the secondary outcomes, i.e., the outcome unplanned admission to hospital during follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: There are few data regarding the accuracy of short frailty tools as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes of older patients admitted to a geriatric ward. We therefore analyzed the accuracy of Rockwood et al's Clinical Frailty Scale and an easy and quick to perform operationalization of Fried et al's frailty phenotype, as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes in our cohort of patients. DESIGN: Prospective analysis with a follow-up period of 6 months. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 307 patients who were 65 years of age or older were included in the study. The patients were assessed in terms of the two frailty measures during their stay in a geriatric ward. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale and the frailty phenotype were both suitable for differentiating between patients who died due to any cause from those who survived during follow-up (primary outcome) (area under the ROC curves (AUC) values 0.867 (95% CI 0.807-0.926), p<0.001 and 0.754 (95% CI 0.688-0.821), p<0.001, respectively). Regarding the secondary outcomes: 1. unplanned admission to hospital and 2. a fall during follow-up, the Clinical Frailty Scale discriminated or tended to discriminate between patients to whom these criteria applied and those to whom they did not (AUC=0.569 (95% CI 0.502-0.636), p=0.046 and AUC=0.574 (95% CI 0.501-0.647), p=0.071, respectively). The frailty phenotype did not show such a differentiation when applied to secondary outcomes (AUC=0.500 (95% CI 0.432-0.568), p=0.994 and AUC=0.518 (95% CI 0.439-0.598), p=0.658, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both short frailty instruments are suitable predictors of mortality in older patients who were admitted to a geriatric ward. The Clinical Frailty Scale, but not the frailty phenotype, predicted at least some of the secondary outcomes, i.e., the outcome unplanned admission to hospital during follow-up.
Authors: Danijela Gnjidic; Sarah N Hilmer; Fiona M Blyth; Vasi Naganathan; Louise Waite; Markus J Seibel; Andrew J McLachlan; Robert G Cumming; David J Handelsman; David G Le Couteur Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Susan K Ewing; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Peggy M Cawthon; Katie L Stone; Teresa A Hillier; Jane A Cauley; Marc C Hochberg; Nicolas Rodondi; J Kathleen Tracy; Steven R Cummings Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-02-25
Authors: John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; G Abellan van Kan; Stefan D Anker; Juergen M Bauer; Roberto Bernabei; Matteo Cesari; W C Chumlea; Wolfram Doehner; Jonathan Evans; Linda P Fried; Jack M Guralnik; Paul R Katz; Theodore K Malmstrom; Roger J McCarter; Luis M Gutierrez Robledo; Ken Rockwood; Stephan von Haehling; Maurits F Vandewoude; Jeremy Walston Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: K Lombard; J van Steijn; T Schuur; M Kuhn; C Rouws; E-L Huinink; C van der Hooft; D van Asselt Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Alberto Pilotto; Franco Rengo; Niccolò Marchionni; Daniele Sancarlo; Andrea Fontana; Francesco Panza; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christian Jung; Raphael Romano Bruno; Bernhard Wernly; Georg Wolff; Michael Beil; Malte Kelm Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Rebecca S Crow; Matthew C Lohman; Alexander J Titus; Martha L Bruce; Todd A Mackenzie; Stephen J Bartels; John A Batsis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Heather E Whitson; Harvey J Cohen; Kenneth E Schmader; Miriam C Morey; George Kuchel; Cathleen S Colon-Emeric Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kathleen A Iles; Emilie Duchesneau; Paula D Strassle; Lori Chrisco; Thomas Clark Howell; Booker King; Felicia N Williams; Rabia Nizamani Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Guowei Li; Lehana Thabane; Alexandra Papaioannou; George Ioannidis; Mitchell A H Levine; Jonathan D Adachi Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 2.362