M Derwall1, M Coburn2. 1. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland. mderwall@ukaachen.de. 2. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical, cognitive and social frailty is increasingly being recognized as a prognostic factor in the perioperative treatment of older patients; however, the concept of frailty has not been introduced into clinical routine in anesthesia. OBJECTIVES: Definition of terms, presentation of tools for determining the degree of frailty and measures to improve the clinical outcome of patients at risk. Proposal of a pragmatic approach for the detection and treatment of high-risk patients in everyday clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Evaluation of current reviews and original publications. Discussion and modification of established frailty assessment tools in context of the needs in perioperative medicine. RESULTS: The degree of frailty is associated with the postoperative outcome. Depending on the definition used, the term frailty refers to a degraded resilience in the physical, mental or social domain. Although there is still no universal definition of frailty, it is clear that frailty is directly correlated with survival and postoperative morbidity. Classical perioperative risk markers such as age or ASA classification do not reach such high predictive value. For the perioperative screening and evaluation of frail patients, an adapted version of the MAGIC assessment in combination with two signal questions is recommended. The extent of frailty in a patient can be improved by a sufficient diet, by physiotherapeutic exercises and by providing cognitive aids; however, scientific proof that preoperative improvement of the frailty status subsequently improves postoperative results is available for only a few specific clinical conditions. CONCLUSION: In contrast to commonly used perioperative risk classifications, frailty is a sensitive marker for the patient's biological age. Therefore, it appears more suitable for estimating the perioperative risk than chronological age or other conventional tools, such as the ASA classification and is therefore a prerequisite for patient centered treatment pathways.
BACKGROUND: Physical, cognitive and social frailty is increasingly being recognized as a prognostic factor in the perioperative treatment of older patients; however, the concept of frailty has not been introduced into clinical routine in anesthesia. OBJECTIVES: Definition of terms, presentation of tools for determining the degree of frailty and measures to improve the clinical outcome of patients at risk. Proposal of a pragmatic approach for the detection and treatment of high-risk patients in everyday clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Evaluation of current reviews and original publications. Discussion and modification of established frailty assessment tools in context of the needs in perioperative medicine. RESULTS: The degree of frailty is associated with the postoperative outcome. Depending on the definition used, the term frailty refers to a degraded resilience in the physical, mental or social domain. Although there is still no universal definition of frailty, it is clear that frailty is directly correlated with survival and postoperative morbidity. Classical perioperative risk markers such as age or ASA classification do not reach such high predictive value. For the perioperative screening and evaluation of frail patients, an adapted version of the MAGIC assessment in combination with two signal questions is recommended. The extent of frailty in a patient can be improved by a sufficient diet, by physiotherapeutic exercises and by providing cognitive aids; however, scientific proof that preoperative improvement of the frailty status subsequently improves postoperative results is available for only a few specific clinical conditions. CONCLUSION: In contrast to commonly used perioperative risk classifications, frailty is a sensitive marker for the patient's biological age. Therefore, it appears more suitable for estimating the perioperative risk than chronological age or other conventional tools, such as the ASA classification and is therefore a prerequisite for patient centered treatment pathways.
Authors: Jeremy Walston; Mary Ann McBurnie; Anne Newman; Russell P Tracy; Willem J Kop; Calvin H Hirsch; John Gottdiener; Linda P Fried Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-11-11
Authors: S M White; F Altermatt; J Barry; B Ben-David; M Coburn; F Coluzzi; M Degoli; D Dillane; N B Foss; A Gelmanas; R Griffiths; G Karpetas; J-H Kim; M Kluger; P-W Lau; I Matot; M McBrien; S McManus; L F Montoya-Pelaez; I K Moppett; M Parker; O Porrill; R D Sanders; C Shelton; F Sieber; A Trikha; X Xuebing Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: Ilona M Punt; Roel van der Most; Bart C Bongers; Anouk Didden; Erik H J Hulzebos; Jaap J Dronkers; Nico L U van Meeteren Journal: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: D Wähnert; A Roos; J Glasbrenner; K Ilting-Reuke; P Ohrmann; G Hempel; T Duning; N Roeder; M J Raschke Journal: Chirurg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Martin A Makary; Dorry L Segev; Peter J Pronovost; Dora Syin; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Purvi Patel; Ryan Takenaga; Lara Devgan; Christine G Holzmueller; Jing Tian; Linda P Fried Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Deepa Sumukadas; Margaret Band; Suzanne Miller; Vera Cvoro; Miles Witham; Allan Struthers; Alex McConnachie; Suzanne M Lloyd; Marion McMurdo Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 6.053