M Ritt1, L C Bollheimer2, C C Sieber2, K G Gaßmann3. 1. Institute for Biomedicine of Ageing (IBA), Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Kobergerstraße 60, D-90408 Nürnberg, Germany; Department of Internal Medicine III (Medicine of Ageing), Geriatrics Centre Erlangen, Hospital of the Congregation of St. Francis Sisters of Vierzehnheiligen, Rathsberger Straße 57, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: Martin.Ritt@waldkrankenhaus.de. 2. Institute for Biomedicine of Ageing (IBA), Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Kobergerstraße 60, D-90408 Nürnberg, Germany; Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Hospital of the Order of St. John of God, Prüfeninger Straße 86, D-93049 Regensburg, Germany. 3. Institute for Biomedicine of Ageing (IBA), Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Kobergerstraße 60, D-90408 Nürnberg, Germany; Department of Internal Medicine III (Medicine of Ageing), Geriatrics Centre Erlangen, Hospital of the Congregation of St. Francis Sisters of Vierzehnheiligen, Rathsberger Straße 57, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data comparing the ability of different major frailty instruments for predicting mortality in hospitalized geriatric patients are scare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 307 patients ≥65years who were hospitalized on geriatric wards were included in this prospective analysis. A fifty-item frailty index (FI), a ten-domain+co-morbidity frailty index based on a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGA), the nine category Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9), the CSHA rules-based frailty definition (CSHA-RBFD), and the frailty phenotype (FP) were assessed during the patients' hospital stays. Patients were followed up over a one-year period. RESULTS: Follow-up data after one year could be obtained from 305 out of the 307 participants. Sixty two participants (20.3%) had died after that time. The FI, FI-CGA, CFS-9, CSHA-RBFD, and FP could all discriminate between patients who died and those who survived during follow-up (areas under the ROC curves: 0.805, 0.808, 0.852, 0.703 and 0.757, all P<0.001, respectively). The CFS-9 showed a better discriminative ability for one-year mortality compared to the FI, FI-CGA, CSHA-RBFD, and FP (all P<0.05, respectively). The FI and the FI-CGA did not differ in their discriminative ability for one-year mortality (P=0.440). The CSHA-RBFD and the FP demonstrated a comparable discriminative ability (P=0.241) and, when compared to the CFS-9, FI, and FI-CGA, an inferior discriminative ability for one-year mortality (all P<0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among those frailty instruments that were evaluated, the CFS-9 emerged as the most powerful for prediction of one-year mortality.
BACKGROUND: Data comparing the ability of different major frailty instruments for predicting mortality in hospitalized geriatric patients are scare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 307 patients ≥65years who were hospitalized on geriatric wards were included in this prospective analysis. A fifty-item frailty index (FI), a ten-domain+co-morbidity frailty index based on a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGA), the nine category Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9), the CSHA rules-based frailty definition (CSHA-RBFD), and the frailty phenotype (FP) were assessed during the patients' hospital stays. Patients were followed up over a one-year period. RESULTS: Follow-up data after one year could be obtained from 305 out of the 307 participants. Sixty two participants (20.3%) had died after that time. The FI, FI-CGA, CFS-9, CSHA-RBFD, and FP could all discriminate between patients who died and those who survived during follow-up (areas under the ROC curves: 0.805, 0.808, 0.852, 0.703 and 0.757, all P<0.001, respectively). The CFS-9 showed a better discriminative ability for one-year mortality compared to the FI, FI-CGA, CSHA-RBFD, and FP (all P<0.05, respectively). The FI and the FI-CGA did not differ in their discriminative ability for one-year mortality (P=0.440). The CSHA-RBFD and the FP demonstrated a comparable discriminative ability (P=0.241) and, when compared to the CFS-9, FI, and FI-CGA, an inferior discriminative ability for one-year mortality (all P<0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among those frailty instruments that were evaluated, the CFS-9 emerged as the most powerful for prediction of one-year mortality.
Authors: Yibo Li; Jenelle L Pederson; Thomas A Churchill; Adrian S Wagg; Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan; Raj S Padwal; Rachel G Khadaroo Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Daniel I McIsaac; Monica Taljaard; Gregory L Bryson; Paul E Beaule; Sylvain Gagne; Gavin Hamilton; Emily Hladkowicz; Allen Huang; John Joanisse; Luke T Lavallée; Hussein Moloo; Kednapa Thavorn; Carl van Walraven; Homer Yang; Alan J Forster Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Shawn Tejiram; Julia Cartwright; Sandra L Taylor; Victor H Hatcher; Colette Galet; Dionne A Skeete; Kathleen S Romanowski Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.192