Ismay N van Loon1,2,3, Namiko A Goto4, Franciscus T J Boereboom5,2, Michiel L Bots6, Marianne C Verhaar3, Marije E Hamaker7. 1. Dianet Dialysis Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; i.vanloon@dianet.nl. 2. Departments of Internal Medicine and. 3. Departments of Nephrology and Hypertension and. 4. Geriatrics and. 5. Dianet Dialysis Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Geriatrics, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A geriatric assessment is an appropriate method for identifying frail elderly patients. In CKD, it may contribute to optimize personalized care. However, a geriatric assessment is time consuming. The purpose of our study was to compare easy to apply frailty screening tools with the geriatric assessment in patients eligible for dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A total of 123 patients on incident dialysis ≥65 years old were included <3 weeks before to ≤2 weeks after dialysis initiation, and all underwent a geriatric assessment. Patients with impairment in two or more geriatric domains on the geriatric assessment were considered frail. The diagnostic abilities of six frailty screening tools were compared with the geriatric assessment: the Fried Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Geriatric8, the Identification of Seniors at Risk, the Hospital Safety Program, and the clinical judgment of the nephrologist. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS: In total, 75% of patients were frail according to the geriatric assessment. Sensitivity of frailty screening tools ranged from 48% (Fried Frailty Index) to 88% (Geriatric8). The discriminating features of the clinical judgment were comparable with the other screening tools. The Identification of Seniors at Risk screening tool had the best discriminating abilities, with a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value of 91%, and a negative predictive value of 52%. The negative predictive value was poor for all tools, which means that almost one half of the patients screened as fit (nonfrail) had two or more geriatric impairments on the geriatric assessment. CONCLUSIONS: All frailty screening tools are able to detect geriatric impairment in elderly patients eligible for dialysis. However, all applied screening tools, including the judgment of the nephrologist, lack the discriminating abilities to adequately rule out frailty compared with a geriatric assessment.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A geriatric assessment is an appropriate method for identifying frail elderly patients. In CKD, it may contribute to optimize personalized care. However, a geriatric assessment is time consuming. The purpose of our study was to compare easy to apply frailty screening tools with the geriatric assessment in patients eligible for dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A total of 123 patients on incident dialysis ≥65 years old were included <3 weeks before to ≤2 weeks after dialysis initiation, and all underwent a geriatric assessment. Patients with impairment in two or more geriatric domains on the geriatric assessment were considered frail. The diagnostic abilities of six frailty screening tools were compared with the geriatric assessment: the Fried Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Geriatric8, the Identification of Seniors at Risk, the Hospital Safety Program, and the clinical judgment of the nephrologist. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS: In total, 75% of patients were frail according to the geriatric assessment. Sensitivity of frailty screening tools ranged from 48% (Fried Frailty Index) to 88% (Geriatric8). The discriminating features of the clinical judgment were comparable with the other screening tools. The Identification of Seniors at Risk screening tool had the best discriminating abilities, with a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value of 91%, and a negative predictive value of 52%. The negative predictive value was poor for all tools, which means that almost one half of the patients screened as fit (nonfrail) had two or more geriatric impairments on the geriatric assessment. CONCLUSIONS: All frailty screening tools are able to detect geriatric impairment in elderly patients eligible for dialysis. However, all applied screening tools, including the judgment of the nephrologist, lack the discriminating abilities to adequately rule out frailty compared with a geriatric assessment.
Authors: Alberto Pilotto; Alberto Cella; Andrea Pilotto; Julia Daragjati; Nicola Veronese; Clarissa Musacchio; Anna Maria Mello; Giancarlo Logroscino; Alessandro Padovani; Camilla Prete; Francesco Panza Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 4.669
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: Mae Thamer; James S Kaufman; Yi Zhang; Qian Zhang; Dennis J Cotter; Heejung Bang Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Frederike M M Oud; Sophia E J A de Rooij; Truus Schuurman; Karlijn M Duijvelaar; Barbara C van Munster Journal: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd Date: 2015
Authors: T Sunderland; J L Hill; A M Mellow; B A Lawlor; J Gundersheimer; P A Newhouse; J H Grafman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 1989-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Shahid M Chandna; Maria Da Silva-Gane; Catherine Marshall; Paul Warwicker; Roger N Greenwood; Ken Farrington Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Nadia M Chu; Xiaomeng Chen; Silas P Norman; Jessica Fitzpatrick; Stephen M Sozio; Bernard G Jaar; Alena Frey; Michelle M Estrella; Qian-Li Xue; Rulan S Parekh; Dorry L Segev; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Ismay N van Loon; Namiko A Goto; Franciscus T J Boereboom; Michiel L Bots; Ellen K Hoogeveen; Laila Gamadia; E F H van Bommel; P J G van de Ven; Caroline E Douma; H H Vincent; Yvonne C Schrama; Joy Lips; Machiel A Siezenga; Alferso C Abrahams; Marianne C Verhaar; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Nephron Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Rasheeda K Hall; Sarah Morton; Jonathan Wilson; Dae Hyun Kim; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Julia J Scialla; Alyssa Platt; Patti L Ephraim; L Ebony Boulware; Jane Pendergast Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2022-07-19
Authors: Khaled Abdel-Kader; Timothy D Girard; Nathan E Brummel; Christina T Saunders; Jeffrey D Blume; Amanda J Clark; Andrew J Vincz; E Wesley Ely; James C Jackson; Susan P Bell; Kristin R Archer; T Alp Ikizler; Pratik P Pandharipande; Edward D Siew Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Meera N Harhay; Maya K Rao; Kenneth J Woodside; Kirsten L Johansen; Krista L Lentine; Stefan G Tullius; Ronald F Parsons; Tarek Alhamad; Joseph Berger; XingXing S Cheng; Jaqueline Lappin; Raymond Lynch; Sandesh Parajuli; Jane C Tan; Dorry L Segev; Bruce Kaplan; Jon Kobashigawa; Darshana M Dadhania; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Namiko A Goto; Ismay N van Loon; Moira I Morpey; Marianne C Verhaar; Hanna C Willems; Mariëlle H Emmelot-Vonk; Michiel L Bots; Franciscus T J Boereboom; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Nephron Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Nadia M Chu; Dayawa Agoons; Ronald F Parsons; Tarek Alhamad; Kirsten L Johansen; Stefan G Tullius; Raymond Lynch; Meera N Harhay; Maya K Rao; Joseph Berger; Matthew Cooper; Jane C Tan; XingXing S Cheng; Kenneth J Woodside; Sandesh Parajuli; Krista L Lentine; Bruce Kaplan; Dorry L Segev; Jon A Kobashigawa; Darshana Dadhania Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.385