Hee-Won Jung1, Ji Yeon Baek1, Il-Young Jang1, Jack M Guralnik2, Kenneth Rockwood3, Eunju Lee1, Dae Hyun Kim4,5. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Division of Gerontology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. 3. Divisions of Geriatric Medicine & Neurology, Dalhousie University and Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Canada. 4. Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence supports the clinical importance of evaluating frailty in older adults, with its strong outcome relevance. We aimed to assess whether the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) correlates with frailty status according to phenotype and deficit accumulation models and can be used as a link between these models. METHODS: We analyzed records of 1064 individuals from the Aging Study of Pyeongchang Rural Area, a population-based, prospective cohort from South Korea. Frailty was determined using the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) phenotype (phenotype model), 26- and 34-item frailty indices (deficit accumulation model). Associations of SPPB score and frailty with a composite outcome of mortality or long-term institutionalization were assessed. Crosswalks for SPPB, the CHS frailty phenotype, and the frailty index were created. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 76.0 years, and 583 (54.8%) were women. According to the CHS phenotype, 26- and 34-item frailty indices, 242 (22.7%), 161 (15.1%), and 280 (26.3%) participants, respectively, had frailty. Sensitivities/specificities for classifying CHS phenotype, 26- and 34-item frailty indices were 0.93/0.55, 0.71/0.84, and 0.80/0.83 by SPPB cut points of ≤9, ≤6, and ≤7, respectively. C-index of SPPB score (0.78) showed a predictive ability for the composite outcome that was comparable to that of CHS frailty phenotype (0.79), 26- (0.78), and 34-item frailty indices (0.79). CONCLUSIONS: We could create a crosswalk linking frailty phenotype and frailty index from correlations between SPPB and frailty models. This result may facilitate clinical adoption of the frailty concept in a broader spectrum of older adults.
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence supports the clinical importance of evaluating frailty in older adults, with its strong outcome relevance. We aimed to assess whether the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) correlates with frailty status according to phenotype and deficit accumulation models and can be used as a link between these models. METHODS: We analyzed records of 1064 individuals from the Aging Study of Pyeongchang Rural Area, a population-based, prospective cohort from South Korea. Frailty was determined using the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) phenotype (phenotype model), 26- and 34-item frailty indices (deficit accumulation model). Associations of SPPB score and frailty with a composite outcome of mortality or long-term institutionalization were assessed. Crosswalks for SPPB, the CHS frailty phenotype, and the frailty index were created. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 76.0 years, and 583 (54.8%) were women. According to the CHS phenotype, 26- and 34-item frailty indices, 242 (22.7%), 161 (15.1%), and 280 (26.3%) participants, respectively, had frailty. Sensitivities/specificities for classifying CHS phenotype, 26- and 34-item frailty indices were 0.93/0.55, 0.71/0.84, and 0.80/0.83 by SPPB cut points of ≤9, ≤6, and ≤7, respectively. C-index of SPPB score (0.78) showed a predictive ability for the composite outcome that was comparable to that of CHS frailty phenotype (0.79), 26- (0.78), and 34-item frailty indices (0.79). CONCLUSIONS: We could create a crosswalk linking frailty phenotype and frailty index from correlations between SPPB and frailty models. This result may facilitate clinical adoption of the frailty concept in a broader spectrum of older adults.
Authors: Emiel O Hoogendijk; Jonathan Afilalo; Kristine E Ensrud; Paul Kowal; Graziano Onder; Linda P Fried Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Jürgen M Bauer; Sjors Verlaan; Ivan Bautmans; Kirsten Brandt; Lorenzo M Donini; Marcello Maggio; Marion E T McMurdo; Tony Mets; Chris Seal; Sander L Wijers; Gian Paolo Ceda; Giuseppe De Vito; Gilbert Donders; Michael Drey; Carolyn Greig; Ulf Holmbäck; Marco Narici; Jamie McPhee; Eleonora Poggiogalle; Dermot Power; Aldo Scafoglieri; Ralf Schultz; Cornel C Sieber; Tommy Cederholm Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Rita Pavasini; Jack Guralnik; Justin C Brown; Mauro di Bari; Matteo Cesari; Francesco Landi; Bert Vaes; Delphine Legrand; Joe Verghese; Cuiling Wang; Sari Stenholm; Luigi Ferrucci; Jennifer C Lai; Anna Arnau Bartes; Joan Espaulella; Montserrat Ferrer; Jae-Young Lim; Kristine E Ensrud; Peggy Cawthon; Anna Turusheva; Elena Frolova; Yves Rolland; Valerie Lauwers; Andrea Corsonello; Gregory D Kirk; Roberto Ferrari; Stefano Volpato; Gianluca Campo Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Rachel Milte; Jasmine Petersen; Jo Boylan; Tim Henwood; Sarah Hunter; Belinda Lange; Michael Lawless; Stacey Torode; Lucy K Lewis Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 4.070