Christian Jung1, Raphael Romano Bruno, Bernhard Wernly, Georg Wolff, Michael Beil, Malte Kelm. 1. Department of Cardiology, Pulmonary Diseases and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Düsseldorf University Hospital; Department of Internal Medicine II, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Hadassah-Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel; Cardiovascular Research Institute Düsseldorf (CARID).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The percentage of patients in intensive care who are 80 years old or older is continually increasing. Such patients already made up more than 20% of all patients in intensive care in Germany in the years 2007-2011. Meanwhile, effective treatments that support the organs of the body and keep severely ill patients alive are also being continually developed and refined. Frailty is a key prognostic parameter. The scientifically based assessment of frailty can be highly useful in intensive care medicine with regard to consented decision-making, individualized prognostication, treatment planning, and aftercare. METHODS: Pertinent publications were retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed database. On the basis of the literature assessment, a variety of screening instruments were used to assess frailty and its significance for very old, critically ill patients in German intensive care units. RESULTS: Only a small number of screening instruments are suitable for routine use in German intensive care units. The scores vary in diagnostic precision. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) enables highly accurate prognostication; it considers the patient in relation to his or her social environment, and to the reference population. Categorization is achieved by means of pictograms that are supplemented with brief written descriptions. The CFS can be used prospectively and is easy to learn. Its interrater reliability is high (weighted Cohen's κ: 0.85 [0.84; 0.87]), and it has been validated for routine use in intensive care units in Germany. CONCLUSION: None of the available scores enable perfect prognostication. In Germany, frailty in intensive-care patients is currently best assessed on a simple visual scale (CFS).
BACKGROUND: The percentage of patients in intensive care who are 80 years old or older is continually increasing. Such patients already made up more than 20% of all patients in intensive care in Germany in the years 2007-2011. Meanwhile, effective treatments that support the organs of the body and keep severely ill patients alive are also being continually developed and refined. Frailty is a key prognostic parameter. The scientifically based assessment of frailty can be highly useful in intensive care medicine with regard to consented decision-making, individualized prognostication, treatment planning, and aftercare. METHODS: Pertinent publications were retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed database. On the basis of the literature assessment, a variety of screening instruments were used to assess frailty and its significance for very old, critically illpatients in German intensive care units. RESULTS: Only a small number of screening instruments are suitable for routine use in German intensive care units. The scores vary in diagnostic precision. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) enables highly accurate prognostication; it considers the patient in relation to his or her social environment, and to the reference population. Categorization is achieved by means of pictograms that are supplemented with brief written descriptions. The CFS can be used prospectively and is easy to learn. Its interrater reliability is high (weighted Cohen's κ: 0.85 [0.84; 0.87]), and it has been validated for routine use in intensive care units in Germany. CONCLUSION: None of the available scores enable perfect prognostication. In Germany, frailty in intensive-care patients is currently best assessed on a simple visual scale (CFS).
Authors: Charles L Sprung; Antonio Artigas; Jozef Kesecioglu; Angelo Pezzi; Joergen Wiis; Romain Pirracchio; Mario Baras; David L Edbrooke; Antonio Pesenti; Jan Bakker; Chris Hargreaves; Gabriel Gurman; Simon L Cohen; Anne Lippert; Didier Payen; Davide Corbella; Gaetano Iapichino Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: M S Nielsson; C F Christiansen; M B Johansen; B S Rasmussen; E Tønnesen; M Nørgaard Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 2.105
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: David B Hogan; Colleen J Maxwell; Jonathan Afilalo; Rakesh C Arora; Sean M Bagshaw; Jenny Basran; Howard Bergman; Susan E Bronskill; Caitlin A Carter; Elijah Dixon; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Kenneth Madden; Arnold Mitnitski; Darryl Rolfson; Henry T Stelfox; Helen Tam-Tham; Hannah Wunsch Journal: Can Geriatr J Date: 2017-03-31
Authors: Raphael Romano Bruno; Bernhard Wernly; Hans Flaatten; Fabian Schölzel; Malte Kelm; Christian Jung Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Johanna M Muessig; Amir M Nia; Maryna Masyuk; Alexander Lauten; Anne Lena Sacher; Thorsten Brenner; Marcus Franz; Frank Bloos; Henning Ebelt; Stefan J Schaller; Kristina Fuest; Christian Rabe; Thorben Dieck; Stephan Steiner; Tobias Graf; Rolf A Jánosi; Patrick Meybohm; Philipp Simon; Stefan Utzolino; Tim Rahmel; Eberhard Barth; Michael Schuster; Malte Kelm; Christian Jung Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: S John; R Riessen; C Karagiannidis; U Janssens; H-J Busch; M Kochanek; G Michels; C Hermes; M Buerke; S Kluge; M Baumgärtel; S Braune; F Erbguth; V Fuhrmann; P Lebiedz; K Mayer; U Müller-Werdan; M Oppert; F Sayk; D Sedding; C Willam; K Werdan Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: R Wirth; C Becker; M Djukic; C Drebenstedt; H J Heppner; A H Jacobs; M Meisel; G Michels; R Nau; J Pantel; J M Bauer Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: Christian Jung; Behrooz Mamandipoor; Jesper Fjølner; Raphael Romano Bruno; Bernhard Wernly; Antonio Artigas; Bernardo Bollen Pinto; Joerg C Schefold; Georg Wolff; Malte Kelm; Michael Beil; Sigal Sviri; Peter V van Heerden; Wojciech Szczeklik; Miroslaw Czuczwar; Muhammed Elhadi; Michael Joannidis; Sandra Oeyen; Tilemachos Zafeiridis; Brian Marsh; Finn H Andersen; Rui Moreno; Maurizio Cecconi; Susannah Leaver; Dylan W De Lange; Bertrand Guidet; Hans Flaatten; Venet Osmani Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-03-31