Do commonly used frailty models predict mortality, loss of autonomy and mental decline in older adults in northwestern Russia? A prospective cohort study.

Anna Turusheva,Elena Korystina,Elena Frolova,Dmitry Zelenukha,Pulodjon Tadjibaev,Natalia Gurina,Eralda Turkeshi,Jean-Marie Degryse

doi:10.1186/s12877-016-0276-4

Abstract

BackgroundFrailty prevalence differs across countries depending on the models used to assess it that are based on various conceptual and operational definitions. This study aims to assess the clinical validity of three frailty models among community-dwelling older adults in north-western Russia where there is a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease and lower life expectancy than in European countries.MethodsThe Crystal study is a population-based prospective cohort study in Kolpino, St. Petersburg, Russia. A random sample of the population living in the district was stratified into two age groups: 65–75 (n = 305) and 75+ (n = 306) and had a baseline comprehensive health assessment followed by a second one after 33.4 +/−3 months. The total observation time was 47 +/−14.6 months. Frailty was assessed according to the models of Fried, Puts and Steverink-Slaets. Its association with mortality at 5 years follow-up as well as dependency, mental and physical decline at around 2.5 years follow up was explored by multivariable and time-to-event analyses.ResultsMortality was predicted independently from age, sex and comorbidities only by the frail status of the Fried model in those over 75 years old [HR (95 % CI) = 2.50 (1.20–5.20)]. Mental decline was independently predicted only by pre-frail [OR (95 % CI) = 0.24 (0.10–0.55)] and frail [OR (95 % CI) = 0.196 (0.06–0.67)] status of Fried model in those 65–75 years old. The prediction of dependency and physical decline by pre-frail and frail status of any the three frailty models was not statistically significant in this cohort of older adults.ConclusionsNone of the three frailty models was valid at predicting 5 years mortality and disability, mental and physical decline at 2.5 years in a cohort of older adults in north-west Russia. Frailty by the Fried model had only limited value for mortality in those 75 years old and mental decline in those 65–75 years old. Further research is needed to identify valid frailty markers for older adults in this population.

Highlights

Frailty prevalence differs across countries depending on the models used to assess it that are based on various conceptual and operational definitions
The aim of the current study is to assess the clinical validity of the three frailty models discussed above in terms of their association with mortality, dependency and mental decline among the community-dwelling older adults in the Crystal study population
We found that only the Fried model predicted the mortality of frail participants even after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.50 (1.20–5.20); p = 0.014] (Fig. 2, Table 2)

Summary

Introduction

Frailty prevalence differs across countries depending on the models used to assess it that are based on various conceptual and operational definitions. This study aims to assess the clinical validity of three frailty models among community-dwelling older adults in north-western Russia where there is a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease and lower life expectancy than in European countries. Some people reach old age in good health and can remain independent and active participants in society, whereas others experience deterioration in their physical and cognitive functions that affects their ability to live independently [2]. This latter group of older adults requires additional assistance, leading to increased financial commitment for their treatment and maintenance. Chronic disease and disability overlap, but are considered clinically distinct [7]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion