Daniel E Hall1, Shipra Arya2, Kendra K Schmid3, Casey Blaser3, Mark A Carlson4, Travis L Bailey5, Georgia Purviance6, Tammy Bockman6, Thomas G Lynch7, Jason Johanning4. 1. Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania2University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia4Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 4. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha6Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, Nebraska. 5. Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, Nebraska7University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City. 6. Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, Nebraska. 7. Veterans Affairs Central Office, Washington, DC.
Abstract
Importance: Growing consensus suggests that frailty-associated risks should inform shared surgical decision making. However, it is not clear how best to screen for frailty in preoperative surgical populations. Objective: To develop and validate the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a 14-item instrument used to measure surgical frailty. It can be calculated prospectively (RAI-C), using a clinical questionnaire, or retrospectively (RAI-A), using variables from the surgical quality improvement databases (Veterans Affairs or American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects). Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-site, prospective cohort from July 2011 to September 2015 at the Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Heath Care System, a Level 1b Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The study included all patients presenting to the medical center for elective surgery. Exposures: We assessed the RAI-C for all patients scheduled for surgery, linking these scores to administrative and quality improvement data to calculate the RAI-A and the modified Frailty Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receiver operator characteristics and C statistics for each measure predicting postoperative mortality and morbidity. Results: Of the participants, the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (13.9) years and 249 participants (3.6%) were women. We assessed the RAI-C 10 698 times, from which we linked 6856 unique patients to mortality data. The C statistic predicting 180-day mortality for the RAI-C was 0.772. Of these 6856 unique patients, we linked 2785 to local Veterans Affairs Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects data and calculated the C statistic for both the RAI-A (0.823) and RAI-C (0.824), along with the correlation between the 2 scores (r = 0.478; P < .001). Of these 2785 patients, there were sufficient data to calculate the modified Frailty Index for 1021, in which the C statistics were 0.865 (RAI-A), 0.797 (RAI-C), and 0.811 (modified Frailty Index). The correlation between the RAI-A and RAI-C was 0.547, and the correlations of the modified Frailty Index to the RAI-A and RAI-C were 0.301 and 0.269, respectively (all P < .001). A cutoff of RAI-C of at least 21 classified 18.3% patients as "frail" with a sensitivity of 0.50 and specificity of 0.82, whereas the RAI-A was less sensitive (0.25) and more specific (0.97), classifying only 3.7% as "frail." Conclusions and Relevance: The RAI-C and RAI-A represent effective tools for measuring frailty in surgical populations with predictive ability on par with other frailty tools. Moderate correlation between the measures suggests convergent validity. The RAI-C offers the advantage of prospective, preoperative assessment that is proved feasible for large-scale screening in clinical practice. However, further efforts should be directed at determining the optimal components of preoperative frailty assessment.
Importance: Growing consensus suggests that frailty-associated risks should inform shared surgical decision making. However, it is not clear how best to screen for frailty in preoperative surgical populations. Objective: To develop and validate the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a 14-item instrument used to measure surgical frailty. It can be calculated prospectively (RAI-C), using a clinical questionnaire, or retrospectively (RAI-A), using variables from the surgical quality improvement databases (Veterans Affairs or American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects). Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-site, prospective cohort from July 2011 to September 2015 at the Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Heath Care System, a Level 1b Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The study included all patients presenting to the medical center for elective surgery. Exposures: We assessed the RAI-C for all patients scheduled for surgery, linking these scores to administrative and quality improvement data to calculate the RAI-A and the modified Frailty Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receiver operator characteristics and C statistics for each measure predicting postoperative mortality and morbidity. Results: Of the participants, the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (13.9) years and 249 participants (3.6%) were women. We assessed the RAI-C 10 698 times, from which we linked 6856 unique patients to mortality data. The C statistic predicting 180-day mortality for the RAI-C was 0.772. Of these 6856 unique patients, we linked 2785 to local Veterans Affairs Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects data and calculated the C statistic for both the RAI-A (0.823) and RAI-C (0.824), along with the correlation between the 2 scores (r = 0.478; P < .001). Of these 2785 patients, there were sufficient data to calculate the modified Frailty Index for 1021, in which the C statistics were 0.865 (RAI-A), 0.797 (RAI-C), and 0.811 (modified Frailty Index). The correlation between the RAI-A and RAI-C was 0.547, and the correlations of the modified Frailty Index to the RAI-A and RAI-C were 0.301 and 0.269, respectively (all P < .001). A cutoff of RAI-C of at least 21 classified 18.3% patients as "frail" with a sensitivity of 0.50 and specificity of 0.82, whereas the RAI-A was less sensitive (0.25) and more specific (0.97), classifying only 3.7% as "frail." Conclusions and Relevance: The RAI-C and RAI-A represent effective tools for measuring frailty in surgical populations with predictive ability on par with other frailty tools. Moderate correlation between the measures suggests convergent validity. The RAI-C offers the advantage of prospective, preoperative assessment that is proved feasible for large-scale screening in clinical practice. However, further efforts should be directed at determining the optimal components of preoperative frailty assessment.
Authors: Linda P Fried; Luigi Ferrucci; Jonathan Darer; Jeff D Williamson; Gerard Anderson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Shelley A Sternberg; Andrea Wershof Schwartz; Sathya Karunananthan; Howard Bergman; A Mark Clarfield Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Catherine Féart; Giovanni Mann; Jose Viña; Somnath Chatterji; Wojtek Chodzko-Zajko; Magali Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand; Howard Bergman; Laure Carcaillon; Caroline Nicholson; Angelo Scuteri; Alan Sinclair; Martha Pelaez; Tischa Van der Cammen; François Beland; Jerome Bickenbach; Paul Delamarche; Luigi Ferrucci; Linda P Fried; Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo; Kenneth Rockwood; Fernando Rodríguez Artalejo; Gaetano Serviddio; Enrique Vega Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Davina Porock; Debra Parker Oliver; Steve Zweig; Marilyn Rantz; David Mehr; Richard Madsen; Greg Petroski Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Thomas N Robinson; Daniel S Wu; Lauren Pointer; Christina L Dunn; Joseph C Cleveland; Marc Moss Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Jai N Darvall; David Pilcher; Rinaldo Bellomo; Fernando G Zampieri; Theodore J Iwashyna; Elizabeth M Viglianti; Marcio Soares Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Elizabeth L George; Aditi Kashikar; Kara A Rothenberg; Nicolas B Barreto; Rui Chen; Amber W Trickey; Shipra Arya Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Lindsey M Zhang; Melissa A Hornor; Thomas Robinson; Ronnie A Rosenthal; Clifford Y Ko; Marcia M Russell Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Kara A Rothenberg; Elizabeth L George; Amber W Trickey; Nicolas B Barreto; Theodore M Johnson; Daniel E Hall; Jason M Johanning; Shipra Arya Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Elizabeth L George; Rui Chen; Amber W Trickey; Benjamin S Brooke; Larry Kraiss; Matthew W Mell; Philip P Goodney; Jason Johanning; Jason Hockenberry; Shipra Arya Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Rupen Shah; Jeffrey D Borrebach; Jacob C Hodges; Patrick R Varley; Mary Kay Wisniewski; Myrick C Shinall; Shipra Arya; Jonas Johnson; Joel B Nelson; Ada Youk; Nader N Massarweh; Jason M Johanning; Daniel E Hall Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Daniel E Hall; Shipra Arya; Kendra K Schmid; Mark A Carlson; Pierre Lavedan; Travis L Bailey; Georgia Purviance; Tammy Bockman; Thomas G Lynch; Jason M Johanning Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Rupen Shah; Kristopher Attwood; Shipra Arya; Daniel E Hall; Jason M Johanning; Emmanuel Gabriel; Anthony Visioni; Steven Nurkin; Moshim Kukar; Steven Hochwald; Nader N Massarweh Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Natalie D Sridharan; Rabih A Chaer; Bryan Boyuan Wu; Mohammad H Eslami; Michel S Makaroun; Efthymios D Avgerinos Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 1.466