Dataset Information

Predicting Mortality and Adverse Outcomes: Comparing the Frailty Index to General Prognostic Indices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mortality prediction models are useful to guide clinical decision-making based on prognosis. The frailty index, which allows prognostication and personalized care planning, has not been directly compared with validated prognostic models.

Objective

To compare the discrimination of mortality, disability, falls, and hospitalization between a frailty index and validated prognostic indices.

Design

Secondary Analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study.

Participants

Seven thousand thirty-three Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older.

Measurements

We measured a deficit-accumulation frailty index, Schonberg index, and Lee index at the 2011 baseline assessment. Primary outcome was mortality at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were decline in activities of daily living (ADL), decline in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), fall, and hospitalization at 1 year. We used C-statistics to compare discrimination between indices, adjusting for age and sex.

Results

The study population included 4146 (44.8%) with age ≥ 75 years, with a median frailty index of 0.15 (interquartile range 0.09-0.25). A total of 1385 participants died (14.7%) and 2386 (35.2%) were lost to follow-up. Frailty, Schonberg, and Lee indices predicted mortality similarly: C-statistics (95% confidence interval) were 0.78 (0.77-0.80) for frailty index; 0.79 (0.78-0.81) for Schonberg index; and 0.78 (0.77-0.80) for Lee index. The frailty index had higher C-statistics for decline in ADL function (frailty index, 0.80 [0.78-0.83]; Schonberg, 0.74 [0.72-0.76]; Lee, 0.74 [0.71-0.77]) and falls (frailty index, 0.66 [0.65-0.68]; Schonberg, 0.61 [0.58-0.63]; Lee, 0.61 [0.59-0.63]). C-statistics were similar for decline in IADL function (frailty index, 0.61 [0.59-0.63]; Schonberg, 0.60 [0.59-0.62]; Lee, 0.60 [0.58-0.62]) and hospitalizations (frailty index, 0.68 [0.66-0.70]; Schonberg, 0.68 [0.66-0.69]; Lee, 0.65 [0.63-0.67]).

Conclusions

A deficit-accumulation frailty index performs as well as prognostic indices for mortality prediction, and better predicts ADL disability and falls in community-dwelling older adults. Frailty assessment offers a unifying approach to risk stratification for key health outcomes relevant to older adults.

SUBMITTER: Shi SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7210351 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExisting operational definitions of frailty are personnel-costly and time-consuming, resulting in estimates with a small sample size that cannot be generalized to the population level. The objectives were to develop a multimorbidity frailty index using Taiwan's claim database, and to understand its ability to predict adverse event.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study. Subjects aged 65 to 100 years who have full National Health Insurance coverage in 2005 were included. We constructed the multimorbidity frailty index using cumulative deficit approach and categorized study population according to the multimorbidity frailty index quartiles: fit, mild frailty, moderate frailty and severe frailty. The multimorbidity frailty index included deficits from outpatient and inpatient diagnosis. Associations with all-cause mortality, unplanned hospitalization and intensive care unit admission were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses.ResultsThe multimorbidity frailty index incorporated 32 deficits, with mean multimorbidity frailty index score of 0.052 (standard deviation = 0.060) among 86,133 subjects included. Compared to subjects in fit category, subjects with severe frailty were associated with a 5.0-fold (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 4.97; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 4.49-5.50) increased risk of death at 1 year after adjusting for age and gender. Subjects with moderate frailty or mild frailty was associated with 3.1- (adjusted HR 3.08; 95% CI 2.80-3.39) or 1.9- (adjusted HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.71-2.01) folds increased risk, respectively.4.49-5.50). The risk trend of unplanned hospitalization and intensive care unit admission is similar among the study population. Besides, the association between the frailty categories and all three outcomes was slightly stronger among women.ConclusionThe multimorbidity frailty index was highly associated with all-cause mortality, unplanned hospitalization and ICU admission. It could serve as an efficient tool for stratifying older adults into different risk groups for planning care management programs.

Project description:BackgroundEarly recognition of older people at risk of undesirable clinical outcomes is vital in preventing future disabling conditions. Here, we report the prognostic performance of an electronic frailty index (eFI) in comparison with traditional tools among nonfrail and prefrail community-dwelling older adults. The study is to investigate the predictive utility of a deficit-accumulation eFI in community elders without overt frailty.MethodsParticipants aged 65-80 years with a Clinical Frailty Scale of 1-3 points were recruited and followed for 2 years. The eFI score and Fried's frailty scale were determined by using a semiautomated platform of self-reported questionnaires and objective measurements which yielded cumulative deficits and physical phenotypes from 80 items of risk variables. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze the severity of frailty in relation to adverse outcomes of falls, emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations during 2 years' follow-up.ResultsA total of 427 older adults were evaluated and dichotomized by the median FI score. Two hundred and sixty (60.9%) and 167 (39.1%) elders were stratified into the low- (eFI ≤ 0.075) and the high-risk (eFI > 0.075) groups, respectively. During the follow-up, 77 (47.0%) individuals developed adverse events in the high-risk group, compared with 79 (30.5%) in the low-risk group (x2, p = 0.0006). In multivariable models adjusted for age and sex, the increased risk of all three events combined in the high- vs. low-risk group remained significant (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 3.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.87-5.07). For individual adverse event, the aHRs were 2.20 (CI: 1.44-3.36) for falls; 1.67 (CI: 1.03-2.70) for ER visits; and 2.84 (CI: 1.73-4.67) for hospitalizations. Compared with the traditional tools, the eFI stratification (high- vs. low-risk) showed better predictive performance than either CFS rating (managing well vs. fit to very fit; not discriminative in hospitalizations) or Fried's scale (prefrail to frail vs. nonfrail; not discriminative in ER visits).ConclusionThe eFI system is a useful frailty tool which effectively predicts the risk of adverse healthcare outcomes in nonfrail and/or prefrail older adults over a period of 2 years.

Project description: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.ObjectiveTo 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.DesignA retrospective multicentric observational study.Setting and participantsAll 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsCFS, 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.RelevanceCFS 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.

Project description:AimsFrailty may be found in heart failure patients especially in the elderly and is associated with a poor prognosis. However, assessment of frailty status is time-consuming, and the electronic frailty indices developed using health records have served as useful surrogates. We hypothesized that an electronic frailty index developed using machine learning can improve short-term mortality prediction in patients with heart failure.Methods and resultsThis was a retrospective observational study that included patients admitted to nine public hospitals for heart failure from Hong Kong between 2013 and 2017. Age, sex, variables in the modified frailty index, Deyo's Charlson co-morbidity index (≥2), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and prognostic nutritional index at baseline were analysed. Gradient boosting, which is a supervised sequential ensemble learning algorithm with weak prediction submodels (typically decision trees), was applied to predict mortality. Variables were ranked in the order of importance with a total score of 100 and used to build the frailty models. Comparisons were made with decision tree and multivariable logistic regression. A total of 8893 patients (median: age 81, Q1-Q3: 71-87 years old) were included, in whom 9% had 30 day mortality and 17% had 90 day mortality. Prognostic nutritional index, age, and NLR were the most important variables predicting 30 day mortality (importance score: 37.4, 32.1, and 20.5, respectively) and 90 day mortality (importance score: 35.3, 36.3, and 14.6, respectively). Gradient boosting significantly outperformed decision tree and multivariable logistic regression. The area under the curve from a five-fold cross validation was 0.90 for gradient boosting and 0.87 and 0.86 for decision tree and logistic regression in predicting 30 day mortality. For the prediction of 90 day mortality, the area under the curve was 0.92, 0.89, and 0.86 for gradient boosting, decision tree, and logistic regression, respectively.ConclusionsThe electronic frailty index based on co-morbidities, inflammation, and nutrition information can readily predict mortality outcomes. Their predictive performances were significantly improved by gradient boosting techniques.