Tobias Kaeppeli1, Marco Rueegg1, Thomas Dreher-Hummel1, Mikkel Brabrand2, Søren Kabell-Nissen2, Christopher R Carpenter3, Roland Bingisser1, Christian H Nickel4. 1. Emergency Department, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 4. Emergency Department, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: christian.nickel@usb.ch.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We validate the Clinical Frailty Scale by examining its independent predictive validity for 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and hospitalization and by determining its reliability. We also determine frailty prevalence in our emergency department (ED) as measured with the Clinical Frailty Scale. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study including consecutive ED patients aged 65 years or older, from a single tertiary care center during a 9-week period. To examine predictive validity, association with mortality was investigated through a Cox proportional hazards regression; hospitalization and ICU transfer were investigated through multivariable logistic regression. We assessed reliability by calculating Cohen's weighted κ for agreement of experts who independently assigned Clinical Frailty Scale levels, compared with trained study assistants. Frailty was defined as a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 5 and higher. RESULTS: A total of 2,393 patients were analyzed in this study, of whom 128 died. Higher frailty levels were associated with higher hazards for death independent of age, sex, and condition (medical versus surgical). The area under the curve for 30-day mortality prediction was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 0.85), for hospitalization 0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.74), and for ICU admission 0.69 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.73). Interrater reliability between the reference standard and the study team was good (weighted Cohen's κ was 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). Frailty prevalence was 36.8% (n=880). CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty Scale appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to identify frailty in the ED. It might provide ED clinicians with useful information for decisionmaking in regard to triage, disposition, and treatment.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We validate the Clinical Frailty Scale by examining its independent predictive validity for 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and hospitalization and by determining its reliability. We also determine frailty prevalence in our emergency department (ED) as measured with the Clinical Frailty Scale. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study including consecutive ED patients aged 65 years or older, from a single tertiary care center during a 9-week period. To examine predictive validity, association with mortality was investigated through a Cox proportional hazards regression; hospitalization and ICU transfer were investigated through multivariable logistic regression. We assessed reliability by calculating Cohen's weighted κ for agreement of experts who independently assigned Clinical Frailty Scale levels, compared with trained study assistants. Frailty was defined as a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 5 and higher. RESULTS: A total of 2,393 patients were analyzed in this study, of whom 128 died. Higher frailty levels were associated with higher hazards for death independent of age, sex, and condition (medical versus surgical). The area under the curve for 30-day mortality prediction was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 0.85), for hospitalization 0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.74), and for ICU admission 0.69 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.73). Interrater reliability between the reference standard and the study team was good (weighted Cohen's κ was 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). Frailty prevalence was 36.8% (n=880). CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty Scale appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to identify frailty in the ED. It might provide ED clinicians with useful information for decisionmaking in regard to triage, disposition, and treatment.
Authors: Christian Jung; Raphael Romano Bruno; Bernhard Wernly; Georg Wolff; Michael Beil; Malte Kelm Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Feng Xie; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Johannes Nathaniel Min Hui Liew; Kenneth Boon Kiat Tan; Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Gayathri Devi Nadarajan; Lian Leng Low; Yu Heng Kwan; Benjamin Alan Goldstein; David Bruce Matchar; Bibhas Chakraborty; Nan Liu Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Tadhg Prendiville; Aoife Leahy; Laura Quinlan; Anastasia Saleh; Elaine Shanahan; Ahmed Gabr; Catherine Peters; Ivan Casserly; Margaret O'Connor; Rose Galvin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kevin F Boreskie; Jacqueline L Hay; Patrick E Boreskie; Rakesh C Arora; Todd A Duhamel Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Noemi R Simon; Andrea S Jauslin; Marco Rueegg; Raphael Twerenbold; Maurin Lampart; Stefan Osswald; Stefano Bassetti; Sarah Tschudin-Sutter; Martin Siegemund; Christian H Nickel; Roland Bingisser Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.241