Nicolas A Baddour1, Cassianne Robinson-Cohen2,3, Loren Lipworth3,4, Aihua Bian5, Thomas G Stewart5, Manisha Jhamb6, Edward D Siew2,3, Khaled Abdel-Kader2,3. 1. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Renal-Electrolyte Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Background: Self-rated health (SRH) and the surprise question (SQ) capture perceptions of health and are independent risk factors for poor outcomes. Little is known about their association with physiologic and functional decline. Objective: Determine the association of SRH and SQ with frailty and functional status in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their utility as screening tools. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Two hundred seventy-two adults, age ≥60 years, with advanced CKD seen in nephrology clinic. Measurements: Patients completed SRH and were evaluated for frailty (Fried criteria and Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS]) and functional status (Katz and Lawton indices of activities of daily living [ADLs] and instrumental ADLs [iADLs]). Providers completed the SQ. Correlations were evaluated using Spearman's rho. Results: Fifteen percent of patients were frail, 8% had ≥1 ADL deficit, and 29% had ≥1 iADL deficit. SRH and SQ were moderately correlated with frailty and iADLs. A SRH of excellent, very good, or good was predictive of nonfrail status (Fried negative predictive value [NPV]: 0.92; CFS NPV: 0.92) and preserved ADL function (NPV for ≥1 deficit: 0.96). A SQ response of 5, 4, or 3 (i.e., surprised) was predictive of nonfrail status and preserved ADL function (CFS NPV: 0.90; ADL ≥1 deficit NPV: 0.95). A SQ response of 1 or 2 had a positive predictive value of 0.64 for ≥1 iADL deficit. Conclusions: Subjective health measures may be useful screening tools for frailty and functional status.
Background: Self-rated health (SRH) and the surprise question (SQ) capture perceptions of health and are independent risk factors for poor outcomes. Little is known about their association with physiologic and functional decline. Objective: Determine the association of SRH and SQ with frailty and functional status in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their utility as screening tools. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Two hundred seventy-two adults, age ≥60 years, with advanced CKD seen in nephrology clinic. Measurements: Patients completed SRH and were evaluated for frailty (Fried criteria and Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS]) and functional status (Katz and Lawton indices of activities of daily living [ADLs] and instrumental ADLs [iADLs]). Providers completed the SQ. Correlations were evaluated using Spearman's rho. Results: Fifteen percent of patients were frail, 8% had ≥1 ADL deficit, and 29% had ≥1 iADL deficit. SRH and SQ were moderately correlated with frailty and iADLs. A SRH of excellent, very good, or good was predictive of nonfrail status (Fried negative predictive value [NPV]: 0.92; CFS NPV: 0.92) and preserved ADL function (NPV for ≥1 deficit: 0.96). A SQ response of 5, 4, or 3 (i.e., surprised) was predictive of nonfrail status and preserved ADL function (CFS NPV: 0.90; ADL ≥1 deficit NPV: 0.95). A SQ response of 1 or 2 had a positive predictive value of 0.64 for ≥1 iADL deficit. Conclusions: Subjective health measures may be useful screening tools for frailty and functional status.
Authors: Marcello Tonelli; Natasha Wiebe; Matthew T James; Scott W Klarenbach; Braden J Manns; Pietro Ravani; Giovanni F M Strippoli; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Huzaifah Salat; Andrei Javier; Edward D Siew; Rocio Figueroa; Loren Lipworth; Edmond Kabagambe; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Maie H El-Sourady; Mohana Karlekar; Cesar Y Cardona; T Alp Ikizler; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Xiaowei Song; Chris MacKnight; Howard Bergman; David B Hogan; Ian McDowell; Arnold Mitnitski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Michael G Shlipak; Catherine Stehman-Breen; Linda F Fried; Xiao Song; David Siscovick; Linda P Fried; Bruce M Psaty; Anne B Newman Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Shananssa G Percy; Taylor L Stallings; Wei Wang; David J R Steele; Michael J Germain; Jane O Schell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Angelo E Volandes Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Laura Gaffney; Agnes Jonsson; Conor Judge; Maria Costello; John O'Donnell; Rónán O'Caoimh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Smith Giri; Nabiel Mir; Mustafa Al-Obaidi; Deanna Clark; Kelly M Kenzik; Andrew McDonald; Crystal Young-Smith; Ravi Paluri; Lakshmin Nandagopal; Olumide Gbolahan; Kirsten A Nyrop; Hyman B Muss; Mackenzi Pergolotti; Smita Bhatia; Grant R Williams Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 5.837