Frailty Assessment Tools Research Articles

Preclinical frailty assessments: Phenotype and frailty index identify frailty in different mice and are variably affected by chronic medications.

Use of different objective frailty assessment tools may improve understanding of the biology of frailty and allow evaluation of effects of interventions on frailty. Polypharmacy is associated with increased risk of frailty in epidemiologic studies, regardless of frailty definition, but the pathophysiology of the association is not well understood. This study aims to (1) assess and compare the prevalence of frailty from middle to old age following control, chronic polypharmacy or monotherapy treatment, when measured using the clinical frailty index assessment and the mouse frailty phenotype tools; and (2) to evaluate and compare the effects of chronic polypharmacy regimens with zero, low and high Drug Burden Index (DBI) and monotherapies from middle to old age on the rate of deficit accumulation on the frailty index, mean number of phenotype criteria, odds of being frail assessed by the frailty index or phenotype, and the time to onset of frailty assessed by the frailty index or phenotype. In a longitudinal study, middle-aged (12months) male C57BL/6J(B6) mice were administered non medicated control feed and water, or therapeutic doses of different polypharmacy combinations or monotherapies in feed and/or water. Frailty assessments were performed at 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24months. There was limited overlap between animals identified as frail using different frailty assessments. Polypharmacy has measurable and different effects on each frailty assessment. Long-term chronic administration of some polypharmacy and monotherapy therapeutic drug regimens increased the number of frailty deficits (clinical frailty index: low DBI polypharmacy (15 and 21months), high DBI polypharmacy (15-21months), oxycodone (15-18months), oxybutynin (15-18months), citalopram (15-21months) and metoprolol monotherapy (15months) and modified frailty phenotype assessment (over the whole duration of treatment, low DBI polypharmacy (adjusted Risk Ratio(aRR)=1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43-2.72), high DBI polypharmacy (aRR=1.88; 95% CI 1.36-2.60), oxybutynin (aRR=1.48; 95% CI 1.01-2.16) and citalopram monotherapy (aRR=1.96; 95% CI 1.41-2.74), p<0.05) . The odds of developing frailty measured with the clinical frailty index increased with high DBI polypharmacy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=3.13; 95% CI 1.01-9.66) and when measured with the frailty phenotype assessment increased with low DBI polypharmacy (aOR=4.38, 95% CI 1.40-13.74), high DBI polypharmacy (aOR=3.43; 95% CI 1.12-10.50) and citalopram monotherapy (aOR=4.63; 95% CI 1.39-15.54)). No treatment affected time to frailty using either frailty assessment. Analysis of the number of deficits on the frailty index or number of positive criteria on the frailty phenotype allows analysis of rate of change and provides greater sensitivity, while the odds of being frail analysis provided a clinically relevant indicator of whether mice had greater chance of reaching a cut-off for becoming frail with medication exposure than without. Our results are consistent with clinical studies, demonstrating that certain polypharmacy regimens induce frailty, with different relationships observed when using different frailty assessments and analyses.

Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of short-term mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on diagnostic test accuracy.

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a representative frailty assessment tool in medicine. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine whether frailty defined based on the CFS could adequately predict short-term mortality in emergency department (ED) patients. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries were searched for eligible studies until December 23, 2021. We included studies in which frailty was measured by the CFS and short-term mortality was reported for ED patients. All studies were screened by two independent researchers. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) values were calculated based on the data extracted from each study. Additionally, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated for effect size analysis, and the area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristics was calculated. Outcomes were in-hospital and 1-month mortality rate for patients with the CFS scores of ≥5, ≥6, and ≥7. Overall, 17 studies (n= 45,022) were included. Although there was no evidence of publication bias, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed. For the CFS score of ≥5, the PLR, NLR, and DOR values for in-hospital mortality were 1.446 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.325-1.578), 0.563 (95% CI 0.355-0.893), and 2.728 (95% CI 1.872-3.976), respectively. In addition, the pooled statistics for 1-month mortality were 1.566 (95% CI 1.241-1.976), 0.582 (95% CI 0.430-0.789), and 2.696 (95% CI 1.673-4.345), respectively. Subgroup analysis of trauma patients revealed that the CFS score of ≥5 could adequately predict in-hospital mortality (PLR 1.641, 95% CI 1.242-2.170; NLR 0.580, 95% CI 0.461-0.729; DOR 2.883, 95% CI 1.994-4.168). The AUC values represented sufficient to good diagnostic accuracy. Evidence that is published to date suggests that the CFS is an accurate and reliable tool for predicting short-term mortality in emergency patients.

Frailty Factors and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BackgroundFrailty is an aggregate expression of susceptibility to adverse health outcomes because of age- and disease-related deficits that accumulate across multiple domains. Previous studies have found the presence of preoperative frailty is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. The number of older adults undergoing orthopedic surgery is rapidly increasing. However, there has been no evidence-based study on the relationship between frailty and outcomes in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.ObjectiveThe aims of this study are to investigate the association between frailty and outcomes in patients who underwent orthopedic surgery as well as patient factors associated with frailty.MethodsThe methods to be used for this systematic review are reported according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. An extensive search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and other mainstream databases. Any study where patients undergoing orthopedic surgery were assessed using a defined or validated measure of frailty and the association of frailty with patient factors and/or outcomes was reported will be included. A total of 2 researchers will independently screen articles for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We will perform a narrative synthesis of the factors associated with frailty, prevalence of frailty, effect of frailty on patient outcomes, and interventions for patients who are frail. A meta-analysis focusing on individual factors associated with frailty and the effect of frailty on patient outcomes will be performed, if applicable. The risk of bias will be evaluated. A subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed.ResultsLiterature searches were conducted in September 2021 and the review is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will provide an overview of frailty and investigate the relationship between frailty and patient outcomes as well as the relationship between patient factors and frailty in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. This study could potentially increase patients’ awareness of the outcomes associated with frailty, compel clinical specialties to further acknowledge the concept of frailty, and enhance the development of assessment instruments and tools for frailty.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020181846; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=181846International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/28338

The Impact of Frailty and Comorbidities on Heart Failure Outcomes.

Frailty is a multisystemic process leading to reduction of physiological reserve and a reduction in physical activity. Heart failure (HF) is recognised as a global cause of morbidity and mortality, increasing in prevalence over recent decades. Because of shared phenotypes and comorbidities, there is significant overlap and a bidirectional relationship, with frail patients being at increased risk of developing HF and vice versa. Despite this, frailty is not routinely assessed in patients with HF. Identification of these patients to direct multidisciplinary care is key, and the development of a frailty assessment tool validated in a large HF population is also an unmet need that would be of considerable benefit in directing multidisciplinary-team management. Non-pharmacological treatment should be included, as exercise and physical rehabilitation programmes offer dual benefit in frail HF patients, by treating both conditions simultaneously. The evidence for nutritional supplementation is mixed, but there is evidence that a personalised approach to nutritional support in frail HF patients can improve outcomes.

Promoting early management of frailty in the new normal: An updated software tool in addressing the need of virtual assessment of frailty at points of care.

IntroductionFrailty is a state of diminished physiological reserve and can be assessed using the frailty index. Early management of frailty is crucial for preventing adverse outcomes. Intended for assessing home‐living older adults, the initial release of the eFI‐CGA software was prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic.MethodsIn addressing the increased need of virtual assessment, the eFI‐CGA was upgraded to version 3.0. In this paper, we introduce the updated electronic frailty assessment tool, reporting the newly developed features and validating its use.ResultsEnd‐user experiences with the previous versions are discussed. The updated features include a search function to resume disrupted assessments. The improved user interface enabled clinicians to record care management details.ConclusionThis study represents an example of software solutions in moving from disruption to transformation, benefiting healthcare for older adults during this challenging time.

Predictive value of frailty in the mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThe present study aimed to analyze the impact of frailty on mortality risk among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsLiterature searches were conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles reporting the association between frailty and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled effects.ResultsA total of 21 studies with 26,652 hospitalized patients were included. Sixteen studies used the Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), and five used other frailty assessment tools. The pooled estimates of frailty in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were 51.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 39.9–62.9%]. In the CFS group, frail patients experienced a higher rate of short-term mortality than non-frail patients [odds ratio (OR) =3.0; 95% CI: 2.3–3.9; I2=72.7%; P<0.001]. In the other tools group, frail patients had a significantly increased short-term mortality risk compared with non-frail patients (OR =2.4; 95% CI: 1.4–4.1; P=0.001). Overall, a higher short-term mortality risk was observed for frail patients than non-frail patients (OR =2.8; 95% CI: 2.3–3.5; P<0.001). In older adults, frail patients had a higher rate of short-term mortality than non-frail patients (OR =2.3; 95% CI: 1.8–2.9; P<0.001).ConclusionsCompared to non-frail hospitalized patients with COVID-19, frail patients suffered a higher risk of all-cause mortality, and this result was also found in the older adult group.

Transplant centers that assess frailty as part of clinical practice have better outcomes

BackgroundFrailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years).MethodsIn a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017–4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017–2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics.ResultsAssessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84–0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83–0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91–0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85–0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74–0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73–0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77–0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87–0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88–0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87–0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83–0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72–0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54–0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76–1.13).ConclusionsAssessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

Beyond the revised cardiac risk index: Validation of the hospital frailty risk score in non-cardiac surgery.

Frailty is an established risk factor for adverse outcomes following non-cardiac surgery. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a recently described frailty assessment tool that harnesses administrative data and is composed of 109 International Classification of Disease variables. We aimed to examine the incremental prognostic utility of the HFRS in a generalizable surgical population. Using linked administrative databases, a retrospective cohort of patients admitted for non-cardiac surgery between October 1st, 2008 and September 30th, 2019 in Alberta, Canada was created. Our primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest at 30-days. Multivariable logistic regression was undertaken to assess the impact of HFRS on outcomes after adjusting for age, sex, components of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) and peri-operative biomarkers. The final cohort consisted of 712,808 non-cardiac surgeries, of which 55·1% were female and the average age was 53·4 +/- 22·4 years. Using the HFRS, 86.3% were considered low risk, 10·7% were considered intermediate risk and 3·1% were considered high risk for frailty. Intermediate and high HFRS scores were associated with increased risk of the primary outcome with an adjusted odds ratio of 1·61 (95% CI 1·50-1.74) and 1·55 (95% CI 1·38-1·73). Intermediate and high HFRS were also associated with increased adjusted odds of prolonged hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and 1-year mortality. The HFRS is a minimally onerous frailty assessment tool that can complement perioperative risk stratification in identifying patients at high risk of short- and long-term adverse events.

Four different frailty models predict health outcomes in older patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BackgroundFrail patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face a higher risk of adverse outcomes, but there is no clear consensus on which frailty measures are most suitable for COPD patients. Herein we evaluated the ability of frailty measurements in predicting 1-year acute exacerbation, hospitalization, and mortality in older patients with COPD.MethodsA total of 302 patients [median age: 86 years (IQR: 80–90), 22.2% female] were admitted to the Department of Geriatric Medicine were prospectively enrolled in this study. Frailty status was assessed using the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Frailty Index of Accumulative Deficits (FI-CD), and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Cox proportional hazard regression and Poisson regression were used to evaluating the association of the adverse outcomes with frailty as assessed using the four instruments. The discrimination accuracy of these tools in predicting the 1-year all-cause mortality was also compared.ResultsPrevalence of frailty ranged from 51% (using FFP) to 64.2% (using CFS). The four frail instruments were associated with 1-year mortality. After an average follow-up time of 2.18 years (IQR: 1.56–2.62 years), frailty as defined by four instruments (except for FI-CD), was associated with death [FFP: Hazard ratio (HR) = 3.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30–7.44; CFS: HR = 3.68, 95% CI 1.03–13.16; SPPB: HR = 3.74, 95% CI 1.39–10.06). Frailty was also associated with acute exacerbation (using FFP) and hospitalization (using FFP, CFS, and FI-CD). Frail showed a moderate predictive ability [area under the curve ranging (AUC) 0.70–0.80] and a high negative predictive value (0.98–0.99) for 1-year mortality.ConclusionsWith the four different frailty assessment tools, frailty was associated with poor prognosis in older patients with stable COPD. The FFP, CFS, FI-CD, and SPPB instruments showed similar performance in predicting 1-year mortality.

Development of Algorithms for Automated Timed Up-and-Go Test Subtask and Step Frequency Analysis.

Frailty is one of the major problems associated with an aging society. Therefore, frailty assessment tools which support early detection and autonomous monitoring of the frailty status are heavily needed. One of the most used tests for functional assessment of the elderly is the "Timed Up-and-Go" test. In previous projects, we have developed an ultrasound-based device that enables performing the test autonomously. This paper described the development and validation of algorithms for detection of subtasks (stand up, walk, turn around, walk, sit down) and for step frequency estimation from the Timed Up-and-Go signals. The algorithms have been tested with an annotated test set recorded in 8 healthy subjects. The mean error for the developed subtask transition detection algorithms was in between 0.22 and 0.35 s. The mean step frequency error was 0.15 Hz. Future steps will include prospective evaluation of the algorithms with elderly people.

Frailty assessment and acute frailty service provision in the UK: results of a national \u2018day of care\u2019 survey

BackgroundThe incorporation of acute frailty services into the acute care pathway is increasingly common. The prevalence and impact of acute frailty services in the UK are currently unclear.MethodsThe Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) is a day of care survey undertaken annually within the UK. SAMBA 2019 (SAMBA19) took place on Thursday 27th June 2019. A questionnaire was used to collect hospital and patient-level data on the structure and organisation of acute care delivery. SAMBA19 sought to establish the frequency of frailty assessment tool use and describe acute frailty services nationally. Hospitals were classified based on the presence of acute frailty services and metrics of performance compared.ResultsA total of 3218 patients aged ≥70 admitted to 129 hospitals were recorded in SAMBA19. The use of frailty assessment tools was reported in 80 (62.0%) hospitals. The proportion of patients assessed for the presence of frailty in individual hospitals ranged from 2.2 to 100%. Bedded Acute Frailty Units were reported in 65 (50.3%) hospitals. There was significant variation in admission rates between hospitals. This was not explained by the presence of a frailty screening policy or presence of a dedicated frailty unit.ConclusionTwo fifths of participating UK hospitals did not have a routine frailty screening policy: where this existed, rates of assessment for frailty were variable and most at-risk patients were not assessed. Responses to positive results were poorly defined. The provision of acute frailty services is variable throughout the UK. Improvement is needed for the aspirations of national policy to be fully realised.

Importance of Frailty Measurement in Oncological Surgery: A Review of Preoperative-Frailty Assessment Tools

With the rising number of an aging population, the importance of frailty’s impact on perioperative outcomes is increasingly being recognized in the surgical community. Frailty is particularly prevalent in patients undergoing treatment for cancer. In this review article, we seek to summarize the relationship between frailty and oncological surgery and review the preoperative frailty assessment tools available for the practitioner. Due to its predictive value, frailty assessment should be applied within daily clinical practice for those patients undergoing oncological surgery. The choice of a frailty measurement tool seems to be both adaptable and circumstantial. Factors to consider when choosing a frailty measurement tool should include time constraint, patient population, clinical circumstance, resource availability, patient mobility, presence of a self-assessment option, and the statistical requirements/support available for each test. With improved recognition of the diagnosis of frailty, physicians can turn to early interventions aimed at limiting frailty-associated adverse outcomes.

Promoting Early Assessment of Frailty in the New Normal: An Updated eFI-CGA Software Tool

Frailty is a state of diminished physiological reserves. Being able to detect and manage frailty early is crucial for effective controlling of frailty-related adverse outcomes. Frailty can be assessed using the frailty index that counts the number of health deficits accumulated over time. Our previous research has enabled an electronic Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (eCGA) and the calculation of the frailty index based on the eCGA (eFI-CGA). While the standalone eFI-CGA has been used by primary care providers in assessing home-living patients, its initial release was prior to the covid-19 pandemic; the associated new challenges were not targeted by the early version. In facilitating effective virtual assessment and care planning during the current “lockdown” and in the upcoming “new normal”, most recently the eFI-CGA version 3.0 was released. In this paper, we 1) introduce the updated electronic frailty assessment tool and its usage, 2) describe the major updates of the software in dealing with challenges due to social isolation and remote assessment, and 3) evaluate the end-user experience with the upgraded methods in frailty assessment. These new developments and implementations allowed a search function to resume disrupted assessment sessions and quickly retrieve previously saved assessment records. The improved user interface promoted the clinicians to conveniently record detailed care plans and management details. The study provided a successful example of moving from disruption to transformation, benefiting the highly demanded healthcare of older adults in this challenging time.

Management of bladder cancer in older patients.

Evidence has shown that patients with bladder cancer are diagnosed at a much older age compared with those with other cancers. Given that co-morbidities and frailty are prevalent in older patients with advanced bladder cancer, they are easily excluded from randomized controlled trials. As little evidence has been available regarding assessment tools for frailty, the management of those patients remains challenging. This weakness is strongly manifested in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Despite radical cystectomy is the standard of care for bladder cancer, there is an extensive undertreatment of older adult patients with potentially curative muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, it is also true that radical cystectomy is often unsuitable for vulnerable or frail patients. Bladder preservation using trimodality therapy has been utilized as an alternative option, but the appropriate selection criteria for trimodality therapy remain unclear. Cisplatin-based regimens have been the first choice for advanced disease among eligible patients. Moreover, immunotherapy appears to have similar benefits and tolerability in both older and younger patients. Furthermore, palliative or supportive interventions need to be initiated earlier in patients with metastatic disease. Accumulating evidence suggests that frailty may play a key role in the selection of treatment modalities. Older patients should be considered for standard treatment based on frailty and not chronological age. Moreover, older patients with bladder cancer need to undergo geriatric assessment for proper decision-making.

Web-based software applications for frailty assessment in older adults: a scoping review of current status with insights into future development

BackgroundA crucial aspect of continued senior care is the early detection and management of frailty. Developing reliable and secure electronic frailty assessment tools can benefit virtual appointments, a need especially relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. An emerging effort has targeted web-based software applications to improve accessibility and usage. The objectives of this scoping review are to identify and evaluate web-based frailty assessment tools currently available and to identify challenges and opportunities for future development.MethodsWe conducted a review with literature (e.g., using MEDLINE databases) and Google searches (last updated on October 10, 2021). Each of the identified web applications were assessed based on eight featured categories and assigned a rating score accordingly.ResultsTwelve web-based frailty assessment applications were found, chiefly provided by the USA (50%) or European countries (41%) and focused on frailty grading and outcome prediction for specific patient groups (59%). Categories that scored well among the applications included the User Interface (2.8/3) and the Cost (2.7/3). Other categories had a mean score of 1.6/3 or lower. The least developed feature was Data Saving.ConclusionsWeb-based applications represent a viable option for remote frailty assessments and multidisciplinary integrated care of older adults. Despite the available web-based frailty assessments on the Internet, many missed certain needed features for professional use in healthcare settings. This situation calls for fully comprehensive web-based applications, taking into consideration a number of key functions linking graphical user interface and functionalities, and paying special attention to secure data management.

Development of a new clinical index to easily assess frailty of elderly patients with multiple myeloma in Asian population

The number of elderly people is rapidly growing, and the proportion of elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) continues to increase. This study aimed to develop a frailty assessment tool based on clinical data and to estimate its feasibility in elderly patients with MM. This study analyzed data from 728 elderly transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM who were treated between January 2010 and October 2019. Our clinical frailty index included age (< 75, and ≥ 75 years), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI; < 3 and ≥ 3), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score (ECOG score; 0, 1–2, and ≥ 3). Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, or frail if they had a score of 0, 1, or ≥ 2, respectively. The overall survival rates differed significantly according to frailty (fit vs. intermediate: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43–4.06; P = 0.001; fit vs. frail: HR = 4.61; 95% CI = 2.74–7.77; P < 0.001 and intermediate vs. frail: HR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.49–2.45, P < 0.001, respectively). The frail had significantly shorter EFS compared with the fit and intermediate group in our frailty index (fit vs. intermediate: HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.92–1.96, P = 0.132; fit vs. frail: HR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.40–3.02, P < 0.001; and intermediate vs. frail: HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.22–1.92, P < 0.001, respectively). The new clinical frailty index, which is based on age, CCI, and ECOG PS, can easily assess frailty in elderly patients with MM and can be helpful in predicting survival outcomes in real world clinical setting.

The feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applicable in acute in-hospital trauma patients: A systematic review.

Assessing frailty in patients with an acute trauma can be challenging. To provide trustworthy results, tools should be feasible and reliable. This systematic review evaluated existing evidence on the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applied in acute in-hospital trauma patients. A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases until February 2020. Studies evaluating the feasibility and/or reliability of a multidimensional frailty assessment tool used to identify frail trauma patients were identified. The feasibility and reliability results and the risk of bias of included studies were assessed. This study was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42020175003). Nineteen studies evaluating 12 frailty assessment tools were included. The risk of bias of the included studies was fair to good. The most frequently evaluated tool was the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (n = 5). All studies evaluated feasibility in terms of the percentage of patients for whom frailty could be assessed; feasibility was high (median, 97%; range, 49-100%). Other feasibility aspects, including time needed for completion, tool availability and costs, availability of instructions, and necessity of training for users, were hardly reported. Reliability was only assessed in three studies, all evaluating the CFS. The interrater reliability varied between 42% and >90% agreement, with a Krippendorff α of 0.27 to 0.41. Feasibility of most instruments was generally high. Other aspects were hardly reported. Reliability was only evaluated for the CFS with results varying from poor to good. The reliability of frailty assessment tools for acute trauma patients needs further critical evaluation to conclude whether assessment leads to trustworthy results that are useful in clinical practice. Systematic review, Level II.

Assessing frailty indicators in the context of psychiatric disorder: A Delphi consensus study.

Substantial construct overlap exists between indicators of frailty and symptoms of some psychiatric disorders. This study aimed to gain consensus of expert academic opinion on the potential impact of psychiatric illness on frailty assessment and how best to conceptualise and measure frailty indicators in the context of psychiatric symptoms. A classic Delphi approach was employed across two studies to achieve consensus: The first-round questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions, analysed through content analysis. The results informed the development of statements for participants to rate their agreement with in subsequent Delphi rounds. Statements with ≥66% agreement were accepted. Delphi Study 1 recruited experts in frailty assessment (n=13) and Delphi Study 2 recruited experts in frailty and psychiatric disorder (n=8). Experts were recruited globally. Overall, 40% of Delphi Study 1 statements and 43% of Delphi Study 2 statements were accepted. Primarily, consensus was reached for statements concerning the influence of depression/anxiety on frailty assessment and potential methods of conceptualising and measuring frailty indicators in the context of psychiatric symptoms. Little consensus was reached concerning the ease and importance of differentiating between frailty indicators and psychiatric assessment criteria with substantial overlap. The Delphi studies provide a novel exploration and consensus of expert academic opinions concerning the assessment of frailty indicators in the context of psychiatric symptoms. The results will inform future research into the adaptation or development of a frailty assessment tool specifically for use in older adult psychiatric populations.

Evaluation of Frailty Assessment Compliance in Acute Care Surgery: Changing Trends, Lessons Learned

Routine frailty assessment has emerged recently in the surgical literature and is an important prognostication and risk stratification tool. The aim of our study was to review our 7-y experience with two frailty assessment tools and changing trends in their use. We performed a 7-y (2011-2017) analysis of our prospectively maintained frailty database. Frail patients were identified using the emergency general surgery and trauma specific frailty indices. Outcome measures were rates of compliance with frailty assessment, overall complications, discharge to skilled nursing facility (SNF)/rehab, and mortality over the study period. Multivariate logistic regression and Cochran-Armitage trend analyses were performed. We evaluated a total of 1045 geriatric patients (Trauma: 587, EGS: 458). Mean age was 74.5 ± 7.9 y, 74% were males, and 81% were white. Overall, 34% of the patients were frail. Compared to non-frail patients, frail patients had higher adjusted rates of complications (OR 2.4 [1.9-2.9]), mortality (OR 1.8 [1.4-2.3]), and rehab/SNF disposition (OR 3.7 [3.1-4.3]). The compliance rate of measuring frailty increased from 12% in 2011 to 78% in 2017, P < 0.001 (Figure). The complication rate decreased (33% versus 21%, P < 0.001), while the rate of discharge disposition to SNF/Rehab increased (41% versus 58%, P < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality (11% versus 9.8%, P=0.48) over the study period. Adherence to frailty measurement increased over the study period. This was accompanied by a significant decline in overall in-hospital complications. Frailty indices can be utilized to identify high-risk patients and develop post-operative strategies to improve outcomes in acute care surgery.

Slow gait speed is associated with worse postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Frailty is associated with poorer outcomes in cardiac surgery, but the heterogeneity in frailty assessment tools makes it difficult to ascertain its true impact in cardiac surgery. Slow gait speed is a simple, validated, and reliable marker of frailty. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of slow gait speed on postoperative cardiac surgical patients. PubMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2021 for studies comparing slow gait speed and "normal" gait speed. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were composite mortality and major morbidity, AKI, stroke, deep sternal wound infection, prolonged ventilation, discharge to a healthcare facility, and ICU length of stay. There were seven eligible studies with 36,697 patients. Slow gait speed was associated with increased likelihood of in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.87-2.87). Additionally, they were more likely to suffer from composite mortality and major morbidity (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.38-1.66), AKI (RR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.44-5.49), deep sternal wound infection (RR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.59-1.98), prolonged ventilation >24 h (RR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.48-2.63), reoperation (RR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.05-1.82), institutional discharge (RR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.61-2.69), and longer ICU length of stay (MD: 21.69; 95% CI: 17.32-26.05). Slow gait speed is associated with poorer outcomes in cardiac surgery. Frail patients are twofold more likely to die during hospital admission than nonfrail counterparts and are at an increased risk of developing various perioperative complications.