Ashwin Subramaniam1,2,3, Ryo Ueno3,4, Ravindranath Tiruvoipati1,2,3, Jai Darvall5,6, Velandai Srikanth2,7,8, Michael Bailey3, David Pilcher3,9,10, Rinaldo Bellomo3,5,6,11. 1. Department of Intensive Care, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC, Australia. 2. Division of Medicine, Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, Australia. 3. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Department of Intensive Care, Eastern Health, Box Hill, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Intensive Care, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Centre for Integrated Critical Care, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC, Australia. 8. National Centre for Healthy Ageing, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 9. Department of Intensive Care, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 10. Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 11. Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Recently, the modified frailty index (mFI), derived from 11 comorbidities has also been used. It is unclear to what degree the mFI is a true measure of frailty rather than comorbidity. Furthermore, the mFI cannot be freely obtained outside of specific proprietary databases. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of CFS and a recently developed International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) mFI (ICD-10mFI) as frailty-based predictors of long-term survival for up to 1 year. DESIGN: A retrospective multicentric observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All adult (≥16 yr) critically ill patients with documented CFS scores admitted to sixteen Australian ICUs in the state of Victoria between April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 were included. We used probabilistic methods to match de-identified ICU admission episodes listed in the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database with the Victorian Admission Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index via the Victorian Data Linkage Centre. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the longest available survival following ICU admission. We compared CFS and ICD-10mFI as primary outcome predictors, after adjusting for key confounders. RESULTS: The CFS and ICD-10mFI were compared in 7,001 ICU patients. The proportion of patients categorized as frail was greater with the CFS than with the ICD-10mFI (18.9% [n = 1,323] vs. 8.8% [n = 616]; p < 0.001). The median (IQR) follow-up time was 165 (82-276) days. The CFS predicted long-term survival up to 6 months after adjusting for confounders (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.21-1.31), whereas ICD-10mFI did not (HR = 1.04, 95% CI, 0.98-1.10). The ICD-10mFI weakly correlated with the CFS (Spearman's rho = 0.22) but had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.06). The ICD-10mFI more strongly correlated with the Charlson comorbidity index (Spearman's rho 0.30) than CFS (Spearman's rho = 0.25) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CFS, but not ICD-10mFI, predicted long-term survival in ICU patients. ICD-10mFI correlated with co-morbidities more than CFS. These findings suggest that CFS and ICD-10mFI are not equivalent. RELEVANCE: CFS and ICD-10mFI are not equivalent in screening for frailty in critically ill patients and therefore ICD-10mFI in its current form should not be used.
The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Recently, the modified frailty index (mFI), derived from 11 comorbidities has also been used. It is unclear to what degree the mFI is a true measure of frailty rather than comorbidity. Furthermore, the mFI cannot be freely obtained outside of specific proprietary databases. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of CFS and a recently developed International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) mFI (ICD-10mFI) as frailty-based predictors of long-term survival for up to 1 year. DESIGN: A retrospective multicentric observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All adult (≥16 yr) critically ill patients with documented CFS scores admitted to sixteen Australian ICUs in the state of Victoria between April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 were included. We used probabilistic methods to match de-identified ICU admission episodes listed in the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database with the Victorian Admission Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index via the Victorian Data Linkage Centre. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the longest available survival following ICU admission. We compared CFS and ICD-10mFI as primary outcome predictors, after adjusting for key confounders. RESULTS: The CFS and ICD-10mFI were compared in 7,001 ICU patients. The proportion of patients categorized as frail was greater with the CFS than with the ICD-10mFI (18.9% [n = 1,323] vs. 8.8% [n = 616]; p < 0.001). The median (IQR) follow-up time was 165 (82-276) days. The CFS predicted long-term survival up to 6 months after adjusting for confounders (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.21-1.31), whereas ICD-10mFI did not (HR = 1.04, 95% CI, 0.98-1.10). The ICD-10mFI weakly correlated with the CFS (Spearman's rho = 0.22) but had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.06). The ICD-10mFI more strongly correlated with the Charlson comorbidity index (Spearman's rho 0.30) than CFS (Spearman's rho = 0.25) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CFS, but not ICD-10mFI, predicted long-term survival in ICU patients. ICD-10mFI correlated with co-morbidities more than CFS. These findings suggest that CFS and ICD-10mFI are not equivalent. RELEVANCE: CFS and ICD-10mFI are not equivalent in screening for frailty in critically ill patients and therefore ICD-10mFI in its current form should not be used.
Authors: Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Catherine Féart; Giovanni Mann; Jose Viña; Somnath Chatterji; Wojtek Chodzko-Zajko; Magali Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand; Howard Bergman; Laure Carcaillon; Caroline Nicholson; Angelo Scuteri; Alan Sinclair; Martha Pelaez; Tischa Van der Cammen; François Beland; Jerome Bickenbach; Paul Delamarche; Luigi Ferrucci; Linda P Fried; Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo; Kenneth Rockwood; Fernando Rodríguez Artalejo; Gaetano Serviddio; Enrique Vega Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Justin C De Biasio; Aaron M Mittel; Ariel L Mueller; Lauren E Ferrante; Dae H Kim; Shahzad Shaefi Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Jai N Darvall; Kate J Gregorevic; David A Story; Ruth E Hubbard; Wen K Lim Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2018-08-19 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Fernando G Zampieri; Theodore J Iwashyna; Elizabeth M Viglianti; Leandro U Taniguchi; William N Viana; Roberto Costa; Thiago D Corrêa; Carlos Eduardo N Moreira; Marcelo O Maia; Giulliana M Moralez; Thiago Lisboa; Marcus A Ferez; Carlos Eduardo F Freitas; Clayton B de Carvalho; Bruno F Mazza; Mariza F A Lima; Grazielle V Ramos; Aline R Silva; Fernando A Bozza; Jorge I F Salluh; Marcio Soares Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Hans Flaatten; Bertrand Guidet; Finn H Andersen; Antonio Artigas; Maurizio Cecconi; Ariane Boumendil; Muhammed Elhadi; Jesper Fjølner; Michael Joannidis; Christian Jung; Susannah Leaver; Brian Marsh; Rui Moreno; Sandra Oeyen; Yuriy Nalapko; Joerg C Schefold; Wojciech Szczeklik; Sten Walther; Ximena Watson; Tilemachos Zafeiridis; Dylan W de Lange Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 6.925