BACKGROUND: As spine surgery becomes increasingly common in the elderly, frailty has been used to risk stratify these patients. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a novel method of assessing frailty using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. However, HFRS utility has not been evaluated in spinal surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of HFRS in predicting adverse outcomes of surgical spine patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery at a single institution from 2008 to 2016 were reviewed, and those undergoing surgery for tumors, traumas, and infections were excluded. The HFRS was calculated for each patient, and rates of adverse events were calculated for low, medium, and high frailty cohorts. Predictive ability of the HFRS in a model containing other relevant variables for various outcomes was also calculated. RESULTS: Intensive care unit (ICU) stays were more prevalent in high HFRS patients (66%) than medium (31%) or low (7%) HFRS patients. Similar results were found for nonhome discharges and 30-d readmission rates. Logistic regressions showed HFRS improved the accuracy of predicting ICU stays (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87), nonhome discharges (AUC = 0.84), and total complications (AUC = 0.84). HFRS was less effective at improving predictions of 30-d readmission rates (AUC = 0.65) and emergency department visits (AUC = 0.60). CONCLUSION: HFRS is a better predictor of length of stay (LOS), ICU stays, and nonhome discharges than readmission and may improve on modified frailty index in predicting LOS. Since ICU stays and nonhome discharges are the main drivers of cost variability in spine surgery, HFRS may be a valuable tool for cost prediction in this specialty.
BACKGROUND: As spine surgery becomes increasingly common in the elderly, frailty has been used to risk stratify these patients. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a novel method of assessing frailty using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. However, HFRS utility has not been evaluated in spinal surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of HFRS in predicting adverse outcomes of surgical spine patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery at a single institution from 2008 to 2016 were reviewed, and those undergoing surgery for tumors, traumas, and infections were excluded. The HFRS was calculated for each patient, and rates of adverse events were calculated for low, medium, and high frailty cohorts. Predictive ability of the HFRS in a model containing other relevant variables for various outcomes was also calculated. RESULTS: Intensive care unit (ICU) stays were more prevalent in high HFRS patients (66%) than medium (31%) or low (7%) HFRS patients. Similar results were found for nonhome discharges and 30-d readmission rates. Logistic regressions showed HFRS improved the accuracy of predicting ICU stays (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87), nonhome discharges (AUC = 0.84), and total complications (AUC = 0.84). HFRS was less effective at improving predictions of 30-d readmission rates (AUC = 0.65) and emergency department visits (AUC = 0.60). CONCLUSION: HFRS is a better predictor of length of stay (LOS), ICU stays, and nonhome discharges than readmission and may improve on modified frailty index in predicting LOS. Since ICU stays and nonhome discharges are the main drivers of cost variability in spine surgery, HFRS may be a valuable tool for cost prediction in this specialty.
Authors: Sidney T Le; Vincent X Liu; Patricia Kipnis; Jie Zhang; Peter D Peng; Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Andy Ton; Shane Shahrestani; Nima Saboori; Alexander M Ballatori; Xiao T Chen; Jeffrey C Wang; Zorica Buser Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Marlena Schnieder; Mathias Bähr; Mareike Kirsch; Ilko Maier; Daniel Behme; Christian Heiner Riedel; Marios-Nikos Psychogios; Alex Brehm; Jan Liman; Christine A F von Arnim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Pishoy Gouda; Xiaoming Wang; Erik Youngson; Michael McGillion; Mamas A Mamas; Michelle M Graham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Gilbert; Quentin Cordier; Stéphanie Polazzi; Marc Bonnefoy; Eilìs Keeble; Andrew Street; Simon Conroy; Antoine Duclos Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 10.668