Dataset Information

Frailty Screening Tools for Elderly Patients Incident to Dialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

A geriatric assessment is an appropriate method for identifying frail elderly patients. In CKD, it may contribute to optimize personalized care. However, a geriatric assessment is time consuming. The purpose of our study was to compare easy to apply frailty screening tools with the geriatric assessment in patients eligible for dialysis.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

A total of 123 patients on incident dialysis ?65 years old were included <3 weeks before to ?2 weeks after dialysis initiation, and all underwent a geriatric assessment. Patients with impairment in two or more geriatric domains on the geriatric assessment were considered frail. The diagnostic abilities of six frailty screening tools were compared with the geriatric assessment: the Fried Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Geriatric8, the Identification of Seniors at Risk, the Hospital Safety Program, and the clinical judgment of the nephrologist. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Results

In total, 75% of patients were frail according to the geriatric assessment. Sensitivity of frailty screening tools ranged from 48% (Fried Frailty Index) to 88% (Geriatric8). The discriminating features of the clinical judgment were comparable with the other screening tools. The Identification of Seniors at Risk screening tool had the best discriminating abilities, with a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value of 91%, and a negative predictive value of 52%. The negative predictive value was poor for all tools, which means that almost one half of the patients screened as fit (nonfrail) had two or more geriatric impairments on the geriatric assessment.

Conclusions

All frailty screening tools are able to detect geriatric impairment in elderly patients eligible for dialysis. However, all applied screening tools, including the judgment of the nephrologist, lack the discriminating abilities to adequately rule out frailty compared with a geriatric assessment.

SUBMITTER: van Loon IN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5586582 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frailty Screening Tools for Elderly Patients Incident to Dialysis.

van Loon Ismay N IN Goto Namiko A NA Boereboom Franciscus T J FTJ Bots Michiel L ML Verhaar Marianne C MC Hamaker Marije E ME

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20170717 9

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>A geriatric assessment is an appropriate method for identifying frail elderly patients. In CKD, it may contribute to optimize personalized care. However, a geriatric assessment is time consuming. The purpose of our study was to compare easy to apply frailty screening tools with the geriatric assessment in patients eligible for dialysis.<h4>Design, setting, participants, & measurements</h4>A total of 123 patients on incident dialysis ≥65 years old were included < ...[more]

PMID: 28716855

Similar Datasets

Project description:RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with kidney failure treated by maintenance dialysis. Whether the incidence of AF differs between patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified older patients (?67 years) with Medicare Parts A and B who initiated dialysis therapy (1996-2011) without a diagnosis of AF during the prior 2 years. EXPOSURE:Dialysis modality at incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and maintained for at least 90 days. OUTCOME:Patients were followed up for 36 months or less for a new diagnosis of AF. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:Time-to-event analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate cause-specific HRs while censoring at modality switch, kidney transplantation, or death. RESULTS:Overall, 271,722 older patients were eligible; 17,487 (6.9%) were treated with peritoneal dialysis, and 254,235 (93.1%), with hemodialysis, at the onset of ESRD. During 406,225 person-years of follow-up, 69,705 patients had AF newly diagnosed. Because the proportionality assumption was violated, we introduced an interaction term between time (first 90 days vs thereafter) and modality. The AF incidence during the first 90 days was 187/1,000 person-years on peritoneal dialysis therapy and 372/1,000 person-years on hemodialysis therapy. Patients on peritoneal dialysis therapy had an adjusted 39% (95% CI, 34%-43%) lower incidence of AF than those on hemodialysis therapy. From day 91 onward, AF incidence was ?140/1,000 person-years with no major difference between modalities. LIMITATIONS:Residual confounding from unobserved differences between exposure groups; ascertainment of AF from billing claims; study of first modality may not generalize to patients switching modalities; uncertain generalizability to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS:Although patients initiating dialysis therapy using peritoneal dialysis had a lower AF incidence during the first 90 days of ESRD, there was no major difference in AF incidence thereafter. The value of interventions to reduce the early excess AF risk in patients receiving hemodialysis may warrant further study.

Dataset Information

Frailty Screening Tools for Elderly Patients Incident to Dialysis.

Background and objectives

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Frailty Screening Tools for Elderly Patients Incident to Dialysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets