Dataset Information

Association between Clinical Frailty Scale score and hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 (COMET): an international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe.

Methods

This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS_1-3), mildly frail (CFS_4-5), or frail (CFS_6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities).

Findings

Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS_6-9 vs CFS_1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS_4-5 vs CFS_1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS_6-9 vs CFS_1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS_4-5 vs CFS_1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS_6-9 vs CFS_1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS_4-5 vs CFS_1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS_6-9 vs CFS_1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS_4-5 vs CFS_1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS_6-9 vs CFS_1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS_4-5 vs CFS_1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS_6-9 vs CFS_1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS_4-5 vs CFS_1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018).

Interpretation

The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution.

Funding

LOEY Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Sablerolles RSG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7906710 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most commonly used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) was recently proposed for the quantification of frailty. We aimed to compare the HFRS with the CFS in critically ill patients in predicting long-term survival up to one year following ICU admission.MethodsIn this retrospective multicentre cohort study from 16 public ICUs in the state of Victoria, Australia between 1st January 2017 and 30th June 2018, ICU admission episodes listed in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database registry with a documented CFS, which had been linked with the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index were examined. The HFRS was calculated for each patient using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that represented pre-existing conditions at the time of index hospital admission. Descriptive methods, Cox proportional hazards and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to investigate the association between each frailty score and long-term survival up to 1 year, after adjusting for confounders including sex and baseline severity of illness on admission to ICU (Australia New Zealand risk-of-death, ANZROD).Results7001 ICU patients with both frailty measures were analysed. The overall median (IQR) age was 63.7 (49.1-74.0) years; 59.5% (n = 4166) were male; the median (IQR) APACHE II score 14 (10-20). Almost half (46.7%, n = 3266) were mechanically ventilated. The hospital mortality was 9.5% (n = 642) and 1-year mortality was 14.4% (n = 1005). HFRS correlated weakly with CFS (Spearman's rho 0.13 (95% CI 0.10-0.15) and had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.12, 95% CI 0.10-0.15). Both frailty measures predicted 1-year survival after adjusting for confounders, CFS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31) and HFRS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15). The CFS had better discrimination of 1-year mortality than HFRS (AUROC 0.66 vs 0.63 p < 0.0001).ConclusionBoth HFRS and CFS independently predicted up to 1-year survival following an ICU admission with moderate discrimination. The CFS was a better predictor of 1-year survival than the HFRS.

Project description:BackgroundFrailty has been associated with postoperative delirium (POD). Studies suggest that the Fried phenotype has a stronger association with POD than the Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) criteria. Although phenotypic frailty is recognized as a good predictor of delirium, the EFS has higher ratings for feasibility in the surgical setting. Thus, our aim was to determine the association between EFS-assessed vulnerability and POD in an elective surgical population of older adults. A secondary aim was to determine which domains assessed by the EFS were closely associated with POD.MethodsAfter IRB approval was received, electronic medical records of surgical patients at our institution were downloaded from 12/1/2018 to 3/1/2020. Inclusion criteria included age ≥ 65 years, preoperative EFS assessment within 6 months of surgery, elective surgery not scheduled for intensive care unit (ICU) stay but followed by at least 1 day postoperative stay, and at least two in-hospital evaluations with the 4 A's test (arousal, attention, abbreviated mental test-4, acute change [4AT]) on the surgical ward. Vulnerability was determined by EFS score ≥ 6. Patients were stratified into two groups according to highest postoperative 4AT score: 0-3 (no POD) and ≥ 4 (POD). Odds of POD associated with EFS score ≥ 6 were evaluated by using logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsThe dataset included 324 patients. Vulnerability was associated with higher incidence of POD (p = 0.0007, Fisher's exact). EFS ≥6 was consistently associated with POD in all bivariate models. Vulnerability predicted POD in multivariable modeling (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 11.5). Multivariable analysis of EFS domains revealed an overall trend in which higher scores per domain had a higher odds for POD. The strongest association occurred with presence of incontinence (OR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 11.0).ConclusionsEFS criteria for vulnerability predict POD in older, non-ICU patients undergoing elective surgery.

Project description:BackgroundThe Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) has been widely but inconsistently applied in published studies, particularly in how diagnostic information recorded in previous hospital admissions is used in its construction. We aimed to assess how many previous admissions should be considered when constructing the HFRS and the influence of frailty risk on long length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day readmission.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study of patients aged 75 years or older who had at least one emergency admission to any of 49 hospital sites in the Yorkshire and Humber region of England, UK. We constructed multiple versions of the HFRS for each patient, each form incorporating diagnostic data from progressively more previous admissions in its construction within a 1-year or 2-year window. We assessed the ability of each form of the HFRS to predict long length of stay (>10 days), in-hospital death, and 30-day readmission.FindingsBetween April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, 282 091 patients had 675 155 hospital admissions. Regression analyses assessing the different constructions of HFRS showed that the form constructed with diagnostic information recorded in the current and previous two admissions within the preceding 2 years performed best for predicting all three outcomes. Under this construction, 263 432 (39·0%) of 674 615 patient admissions were classified as having low frailty risk, for whom 33 333 (12·7%) had a long length of stay, 10 145 (3·9%) died in hospital, and 45 226 (17·2%) were readmitted within 30 days. By contrast with those patients with low frailty risk, for those with intermediate frailty risk, the probability was 2·5-times higher (95% CI 2·4 to 2·6) for long length of stay, 2·17-times higher (2·1 to 2·2) for in-hospital death, and 0·7% higher (0·5 to 1) for readmission. For patients with high frailty risk, the probability was 4·3-times higher (4·2 to 4·5) for long length of stay, 2·48-times higher (2·4 to 2·6) for in-hospital death, and -1% (-1·2 to -0·5) lower for readmission than those with low frailty risk. The intermediate and high frailty risk categories were more important predictors of long length of stay than any of the other rich set of control variables included in our analysis. These categories also proved to be important predictors of in-hospital mortality, with only the Charlson Comorbidity Index offering greater predictive power.InterpretationWe recommend constructing the HFRS with diagnostic information from the current admission and from the previous two admissions in the preceding 2 years. This HFRS form was a powerful predictor of long length of stay and in-hospital mortality, but less so of emergency readmissions.FundingNational Institute of Health Research.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine the prevalence of frailty coding within the Dr Foster Global Comparators (GC) international database. We then aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model, based on frailty syndromes, for key outcomes using the GC data set.DesignA retrospective cohort analysis of data from patients over 75 years of age from the GC international administrative data. A risk prediction model was developed from the initial analysis based on seven frailty syndrome groups and their relationship to outcome metrics. A weighting was then created for each syndrome group and summated to create the Dr Foster Global Frailty Score. Performance of the score for predictive capacity was compared with an established prognostic comorbidity model (Elixhauser) and tested on another administrative database Hospital Episode Statistics (2011-2015), for external validation.Setting34 hospitals from nine countries across Europe, Australia, the UK and USA.ResultsOf 6.7 million patient records in the GC database, 1.4 million (20%) were from patients aged 75 years or more. There was marked variation in coding of frailty syndromes between countries and hospitals. Frailty syndromes were coded in 2% to 24% of patient spells. Falls and fractures was the most common syndrome coded (24%). The Dr Foster Global Frailty Score was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality, 30-day non-elective readmission and long length of hospital stay. The score had significant predictive capacity beyond that of other known predictors of poor outcome in older persons, such as comorbidity and chronological age. The score's predictive capacity was higher in the elective group compared with non-elective, and may reflect improved performance in lower acuity states.ConclusionsFrailty syndromes can be coded in international secondary care administrative data sets. The Dr Foster Global Frailty Score significantly predicts key outcomes. This methodology may be feasibly utilised for case-mix adjustment for older persons internationally.

Project description:BackgroundHeart transplantation is an effective treatment offering the best recovery in both quality and quantity of life in those affected by refractory, severe heart failure. However, transplantation is limited by donor organ availability. The reintroduction of heart donation after the circulatory determination of death (DCD) in 2014 offered an uplift in transplant activity by 30%. Thoraco-abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (taNRP) enables in-situ reperfusion of the DCD heart. The objective of this paper is to assess the clinical outcomes of DCD donor hearts recovered and transplanted from donors undergoing taNRP.MethodThis was a multicentre retrospective observational study. Outcomes included functional warm ischaemic time, use of mechanical support immediately following transplantation, perioperative and long-term actuarial survival and incidence of acute rejection requiring treatment. 157 taNRP DCD heart transplants, performed between February 2, 2015, and July 29, 2022, have been included from 15 major transplant centres worldwide including the UK, Spain, the USA and Belgium. 673 donations after the neurological determination of death (DBD) heart transplantations from the same centres were used as a comparison group for survival.FindingstaNRP resulted in a 23% increase in heart transplantation activity. Survival was similar in the taNRP group when compared to DBD. 30-day survival was 96.8% ([92.5%-98.6%] 95% CI, n = 156), 1-year survival was 93.2% ([87.7%-96.3%] 95% CI, n = 72) and 5-year survival was 84.3% ([69.6%-92.2%] 95% CI, n = 13).InterpretationOur study suggests that taNRP provides a significant boost to heart transplantation activity. The survival rates of taNRP are comparable to those obtained for DBD transplantation in this study. The similar survival may in part be related to a short warm ischaemic time or through a possible selection bias of younger donors, this being an uncontrolled observational study. Therefore, our study suggests that taNRP offers an effective method of organ preservation and procurement. This early success of the technique warrants further investigation and use.FundingNone of the authors have a financial relationship with a commercial entity that has an interest in the subject.

Project description:BackgroundOlder people are increasing users of health care globally. We aimed to establish whether older people with characteristics of frailty and who are at risk of adverse health-care outcomes could be identified using routinely collected data.MethodsA three-step approach was used to develop and validate a Hospital Frailty Risk Score from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnostic codes. First, we carried out a cluster analysis to identify a group of older people (≥75 years) admitted to hospital who had high resource use and diagnoses associated with frailty. Second, we created a Hospital Frailty Risk Score based on ICD-10 codes that characterised this group. Third, in separate cohorts, we tested how well the score predicted adverse outcomes and whether it identified similar groups as other frailty tools.FindingsIn the development cohort (n=22 139), older people with frailty diagnoses formed a distinct group and had higher non-elective hospital use (33·6 bed-days over 2 years compared with 23·0 bed-days for the group with the next highest number of bed-days). In the national validation cohort (n=1 013 590), compared with the 429 762 (42·4%) patients with the lowest risk scores, the 202 718 (20·0%) patients with the highest Hospital Frailty Risk Scores had increased odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 1·71, 95% CI 1·68-1·75), long hospital stay (6·03, 5·92-6·10), and 30-day readmission (1·48, 1·46-1·50). The c statistics (ie, model discrimination) between individuals for these three outcomes were 0·60, 0·68, and 0·56, respectively. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score showed fair overlap with dichotomised Fried and Rockwood scales (kappa scores 0·22, 95% CI 0·15-0·30 and 0·30, 0·22-0·38, respectively) and moderate agreement with the Rockwood Frailty Index (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0·41, 95% CI 0·38-0·47).InterpretationThe Hospital Frailty Risk Score provides hospitals and health systems with a low-cost, systematic way to screen for frailty and identify a group of patients who are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and for whom a frailty-attuned approach might be useful.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.