Literature DB >> 35293969

Comparison of Electronic Frailty Metrics for Prediction of Adverse Outcomes of Abdominal Surgery.

Sidney T Le1,2, Vincent X Liu1,3, Patricia Kipnis1, Jie Zhang1, Peter D Peng3, Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano1.   

Abstract

Importance: Electronic frailty metrics have been developed for automated frailty assessment and include the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), the Electronic Frailty Index (eFI), the 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index (mFI-5), and the Risk Analysis Index (RAI). Despite substantial differences in their construction, these 4 electronic frailty metrics have not been rigorously compared within a surgical population. Objective: To characterize the associations between 4 electronic frailty metrics and to measure their predictive value for adverse surgical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from patients who underwent abdominal surgery from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, at 20 medical centers within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Participants included adults older than 50 years who underwent abdominal surgical procedures at KPNC from 2010 to 2020 that were sampled for reporting to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pearson correlation coefficients between electronic frailty metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of univariate models and multivariate preoperative risk models for 30-day mortality, readmission, and morbidity, which was defined as a composite of mortality and major postoperative complications.
Results: Within the cohort of 37 186 patients, mean (SD) age, 67.9 (female, 19 127 [51.4%]), correlations between pairs of metrics ranged from 0.19 (95% CI, 0.18- 0.20) for mFI-5 and RAI 0.69 (95% CI, 0.68-0.70). Only 1085 of 37 186 (2.9%) were classified as frail based on all 4 metrics. In univariate models for morbidity, HFRS demonstrated higher predictive discrimination (AUROC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.70-0.72) than eFI (AUROC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.63-0.65), mFI-5 (AUROC, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.57-0.59), and RAI (AUROC, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.57-0.58). The predictive discrimination of multivariate models with age, sex, comorbidity burden, and procedure characteristics for all 3 adverse surgical outcomes improved by including HFRS into the models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the 4 electronic frailty metrics demonstrated heterogeneous correlation and classified distinct groups of surgical patients as frail. However, HFRS demonstrated the highest predictive value for adverse surgical outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35293969      PMCID: PMC8928095          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   16.681


  72 in total

1.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; C Steiner; D R Harris; R M Coffey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 2.  Prehabilitation to enhance perioperative care.

Authors:  Francesco Carli; Celena Scheede-Bergdahl
Journal:  Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  2015-01-09

3.  Development and Initial Validation of the Risk Analysis Index for Measuring Frailty in Surgical Populations.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Shipra Arya; Kendra K Schmid; Casey Blaser; Mark A Carlson; Travis L Bailey; Georgia Purviance; Tammy Bockman; Thomas G Lynch; Jason Johanning
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 14.766

4.  Recommendations for Preoperative Management of Frailty from the Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI).

Authors:  Maria Loreto Alvarez-Nebreda; Nathalie Bentov; Richard D Urman; Sabeena Setia; Joe Chin-Sun Huang; Kurt Pfeifer; Katherine Bennett; Thuan D Ong; Deborah Richman; Divya Gollapudi; G Alec Rooke; Houman Javedan
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 9.452

Review 5.  Frailty in elderly people.

Authors:  Andrew Clegg; John Young; Steve Iliffe; Marcel Olde Rikkert; Kenneth Rockwood
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Risk-adjusting hospital mortality using a comprehensive electronic record in an integrated health care delivery system.

Authors:  Gabriel J Escobar; Marla N Gardner; John D Greene; David Draper; Patricia Kipnis
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Recalibration and External Validation of the Risk Analysis Index: A Surgical Frailty Assessment Tool.

Authors:  Shipra Arya; Patrick Varley; Ada Youk; Jeffrey D Borrebach; Sebastian Perez; Nader N Massarweh; Jason M Johanning; Daniel E Hall
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Physical Frailty: ICFSR International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Identification and Management.

Authors:  E Dent; J E Morley; A J Cruz-Jentoft; L Woodhouse; L Rodríguez-Mañas; L P Fried; J Woo; I Aprahamian; A Sanford; J Lundy; F Landi; J Beilby; F C Martin; J M Bauer; L Ferrucci; R A Merchant; B Dong; H Arai; E O Hoogendijk; C W Won; A Abbatecola; T Cederholm; T Strandberg; L M Gutiérrez Robledo; L Flicker; S Bhasin; M Aubertin-Leheudre; H A Bischoff-Ferrari; J M Guralnik; J Muscedere; M Pahor; J Ruiz; A M Negm; J Y Reginster; D L Waters; B Vellas
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 4.075

9.  The use of linked routine data to optimise calculation of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score on the basis of previous hospital admissions: a retrospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Andrew Street; Laia Maynou; Thomas Gilbert; Tony Stone; Suzanne Mason; Simon Conroy
Journal:  Lancet Healthy Longev       Date:  2021-03

10.  Standard laboratory tests to identify older adults at increased risk of death.

Authors:  Susan E Howlett; Michael R H Rockwood; Arnold Mitnitski; Kenneth Rockwood
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Identifying Frail Patients by Using Electronic Health Records in Primary Care: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Jianzhao Luo; Xiaoyang Liao; Chuan Zou; Qian Zhao; Yi Yao; Xiang Fang; John Spicer
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-06-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.