Simone Perna1, Matthew D'Arcy Francis2, Chiara Bologna3, Francesca Moncaglieri3, Antonella Riva4, Paolo Morazzoni4, Pietro Allegrini4, Antonio Isu3, Beatrice Vigo3, Fabio Guerriero2, Mariangela Rondanelli3. 1. Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Section of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Pavia, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona di Pavia, Via Emilia 12, Pavia, Italy. simoneperna@hotmail.it. 2. Deprtment of Internal Medicine and Medical Therapy, Section of Geriatrics University of Pavia, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona, Pavia, Italy. 3. Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Section of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Pavia, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona di Pavia, Via Emilia 12, Pavia, Italy. 4. Research and Development Unit, Indena, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) on frailty assessment in association with multi-dimensional conditions assessed with specific screening tools and to explore the prevalence of frailty by gender. METHODS: We enrolled 366 hospitalised patients (women\men: 251\115), mean age 81.5 years. The EFS was given to the patients to evaluate their frailty. Then we collected data concerning cognitive status through Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), health status (evaluated with the number of diseases), functional independence (Barthel Index and Activities Daily Living; BI, ADL, IADL), use of drugs (counting of drugs taken every day), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Skeletal Muscle Index of sarcopenia (SMI), osteoporosis and functionality (Handgrip strength). RESULTS: According with the EFS, the 19.7% of subjects were classified as non frail, 66.4% as apparently vulnerable and 13.9% with severe frailty. The EFS scores were associated with cognition (MMSE: β = 0.980; p < 0.01), functional independence (ADL: β = -0.512; p < 0.00); (IADL: β = -0.338; p < 0.01); use of medications (β = 0.110; p < 0.01); nutrition (MNA: β = -0.413; p < 0.01); mood (GDS: β = -0.324; p < 0.01); functional performance (Handgrip: β = -0.114, p < 0.01) (BI: β = -0.037; p < 0.01), but not with number of comorbidities (β = 0.108; p = 0.052). In osteoporotic patients versus not-osteoporotic patients the mean EFS score did not differ between groups (women: p = 0.365; men: p = 0.088), whereas in Sarcopenic versus not-Sarcopenic patients, there was a significant differences in women: p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that measuring frailty with EFS is helpful and performance tool for stratifying the state of fragility in a group of institutionalized elderly. As matter of facts the EFS has been shown to be associated with several geriatric conditions such independence, drugs assumption, mood, mental, functional and nutritional status.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) on frailty assessment in association with multi-dimensional conditions assessed with specific screening tools and to explore the prevalence of frailty by gender. METHODS: We enrolled 366 hospitalised patients (women\men: 251\115), mean age 81.5 years. The EFS was given to the patients to evaluate their frailty. Then we collected data concerning cognitive status through Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), health status (evaluated with the number of diseases), functional independence (Barthel Index and Activities Daily Living; BI, ADL, IADL), use of drugs (counting of drugs taken every day), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Skeletal Muscle Index of sarcopenia (SMI), osteoporosis and functionality (Handgrip strength). RESULTS: According with the EFS, the 19.7% of subjects were classified as non frail, 66.4% as apparently vulnerable and 13.9% with severe frailty. The EFS scores were associated with cognition (MMSE: β = 0.980; p < 0.01), functional independence (ADL: β = -0.512; p < 0.00); (IADL: β = -0.338; p < 0.01); use of medications (β = 0.110; p < 0.01); nutrition (MNA: β = -0.413; p < 0.01); mood (GDS: β = -0.324; p < 0.01); functional performance (Handgrip: β = -0.114, p < 0.01) (BI: β = -0.037; p < 0.01), but not with number of comorbidities (β = 0.108; p = 0.052). In osteoporoticpatients versus not-osteoporoticpatients the mean EFS score did not differ between groups (women: p = 0.365; men: p = 0.088), whereas in Sarcopenic versus not-Sarcopenicpatients, there was a significant differences in women: p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that measuring frailty with EFS is helpful and performance tool for stratifying the state of fragility in a group of institutionalized elderly. As matter of facts the EFS has been shown to be associated with several geriatric conditions such independence, drugs assumption, mood, mental, functional and nutritional status.
Authors: Jeremy Walston; Evan C Hadley; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Anne B Newman; Stephanie A Studenski; William B Ershler; Tamara Harris; Linda P Fried Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.562
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