Julee McDonagh1, Caleb Ferguson2, Phillip J Newton2. 1. ImPACCT, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. Julee.McDonagh@uts.edu.au. 2. Western Sydney Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Blacktown Clinical & Research School, Blacktown Hospital, Western Sydney University & Western Sydney Local Health District, Marcel Crescent, Blacktown, NSW, 2148, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The study aims (1) to provide a contemporary description of frailty assessment in heart failure and (2) to provide an overview of multi-domain frailty assessment in heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Frailty assessment is an important predictive measure for mortality and hospitalisation in individuals with heart failure. To date, there are no frailty assessment instruments validated for use in heart failure. This has resulted in significant heterogeneity between studies regarding the assessment of frailty. The most common frailty assessment instrument used in heart failure is the Frailty Phenotype which focuses on five physical domains of frailty; the appropriateness a purely physical measure of frailty in individuals with heart failure who frequently experience decreased exercise tolerance and shortness of breath is yet to be determined. A limited number of studies have approached frailty assessment using a multi-domain view which may be more clinically relevant in heart failure. There remains a lack of consensus regarding frailty assessment and an absence of a validated instrument in heart failure. Despite this, frailty continues to be assessed frequently, primarily for research purposes, using predominantly physical frailty measures. A more multidimensional view of frailty assessment using a multi-domain approach will likely be more sensitive to identifying at risk patients.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The study aims (1) to provide a contemporary description of frailty assessment in heart failure and (2) to provide an overview of multi-domain frailty assessment in heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Frailty assessment is an important predictive measure for mortality and hospitalisation in individuals with heart failure. To date, there are no frailty assessment instruments validated for use in heart failure. This has resulted in significant heterogeneity between studies regarding the assessment of frailty. The most common frailty assessment instrument used in heart failure is the Frailty Phenotype which focuses on five physical domains of frailty; the appropriateness a purely physical measure of frailty in individuals with heart failure who frequently experience decreased exercise tolerance and shortness of breath is yet to be determined. A limited number of studies have approached frailty assessment using a multi-domain view which may be more clinically relevant in heart failure. There remains a lack of consensus regarding frailty assessment and an absence of a validated instrument in heart failure. Despite this, frailty continues to be assessed frequently, primarily for research purposes, using predominantly physical frailty measures. A more multidimensional view of frailty assessment using a multi-domain approach will likely be more sensitive to identifying at risk patients.
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: Shannon M Dunlay; Soon J Park; Lyle D Joyce; Richard C Daly; John M Stulak; Sheila M McNallan; Véronique L Roger; Sudhir S Kushwaha Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Elsa Dent; Christopher Lien; Wee Shiong Lim; Wei Chin Wong; Chek Hooi Wong; Tze Pin Ng; Jean Woo; Birong Dong; Shelley de la Vega; Philip Jun Hua Poi; Shahrul Bahyah Binti Kamaruzzaman; Chang Won; Liang-Kung Chen; Kenneth Rockwood; Hidenori Arai; Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas; Li Cao; Matteo Cesari; Piu Chan; Edward Leung; Francesco Landi; Linda P Fried; John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; Leon Flicker Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: James C Fang; Gregory A Ewald; Larry A Allen; Javed Butler; Cheryl A Westlake Canary; Monica Colvin-Adams; Michael G Dickinson; Phillip Levy; Wendy Gattis Stough; Nancy K Sweitzer; John R Teerlink; David J Whellan; Nancy M Albert; Rajan Krishnamani; Michael W Rich; Mary N Walsh; Mark R Bonnell; Peter E Carson; Michael C Chan; Daniel L Dries; Adrian F Hernandez; Ray E Hershberger; Stuart D Katz; Stephanie Moore; Jo E Rodgers; Joseph G Rogers; Amanda R Vest; Michael M Givertz Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: C Cooper; R Fielding; M Visser; L J van Loon; Y Rolland; E Orwoll; K Reid; S Boonen; W Dere; S Epstein; B Mitlak; Y Tsouderos; A A Sayer; R Rizzoli; J Y Reginster; J A Kanis Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Ning Zhou; Zhili Ji; Fengjuan Li; Bokang Qiao; Rui Lin; Wenxi Jiang; Yuexin Zhu; Yuwei Lin; Kui Zhang; Shuanglei Li; Bin You; Pei Gao; Ran Dong; Yuan Wang; Jie Du Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Erik Fung; Elsie Hui; Xiaobo Yang; Leong T Lui; King F Cheng; Qi Li; Yiting Fan; Daljit S Sahota; Bosco H M Ma; Jenny S W Lee; Alex P W Lee; Jean Woo Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 4.566