Dataset Information

Screening tools to expedite assessment of frailty in people receiving haemodialysis: a diagnostic accuracy study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Frailty is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in stage-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD-5) and upwards of one third of people receiving haemodialysis (HD) are frail. While many frailty screening methods are available in both uremic and non-uremic populations, their implementation in clinical settings is often challenged by time and resource constraints. In this study, we explored the diagnostic accuracy of time-efficient screening tools in people receiving HD.

Methods

A convenience sample of 76 people receiving HD [mean age = 61.1 years (SD = 14), 53.9% male] from three Renal Units were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Frailty was diagnosed by means of the Fried phenotype. Physical performance-based screening tools encompassed handgrip strength, 15-ft gait speed, timed up and go (TUG), and five-repetition sit to stand (STS-5) tests. In addition, participants completed the SF-36 Health Survey, the short-form international physical activity questionnaire and the Tinetti falls efficacy scale (FES) as further frailty-related measures. Outcome measures included the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The diagnostic performance of screening tools in assessing fall-risk was also investigated.

Results

Overall, 36.8% of participants were classified as frail. All the examined instruments could significantly discriminate frailty status in the study population. Gait speed [AUC = 0.89 (95%CI: 0.81-0.98), sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 93%] and TUG [AUC = 0.90 (95%CI: 0.80-0.99), sensitivity = 89%, specificity = 85%] exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy. There was a significant difference in gait speed AUC (20%, p = 0.013) between participants aged 65 years or older (n = 36) and those under 65 years of age (n = 40), with better discriminating performance in the younger sub-group. The Tinetti FES was the only instrument showing good diagnostic accuracy (AUCs≥0.80) for both frailty (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 79%) and fall-risk (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 71%) screening.

Conclusions

This cross-sectional study revealed that time- and cost-efficient walking performance measures can accurately be used for frailty-screening purposes in people receiving HD. While self-selected gait speed had an excellent performance in people under 65 years of age, TUG may be a more suitable screening method for elderly patients (≥65 years). The Tinetti FES may be a clinically useful test when physical testing is not achievable.

SUBMITTER: Zanotto T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252257 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFrailty is highly prevalent in haemodialysis (HD) patients, leading to poor outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of intradialytic exercise is feasible for frail HD patients, and explore how the intervention may be tailored to their needs.DesignMixed-methods feasibility.Setting and participantsPrevalent adult HD patients of the CYCLE-HD trial with a Clinical Frailty Scale Score of 4-7 (vulnerable to severely frail) were eligible for the feasibility study.InterventionsParticipants in the exercise group undertook 6 months of three times per week, progressive, moderate intensity intradialytic cycling (IDC).OutcomesPrimary outcomes were related to feasibility. Secondary outcomes were falls incidence measured from baseline to 1 year following intervention completion, and exercise capacity, physical function, physical activity and patient-reported outcomes measured at baseline and 6 months. Acceptability of trial procedures and the intervention were explored via diaries and interviews with n=25 frail HD patients who both participated in (n=13, 52%), and declined (n=12, 48%), the trial.Results124 (30%) patients were eligible, and of these 64 (52%) consented with 51 (80%) subsequently completing a baseline assessment. n=24 (71% male; 59±13 years) dialysed during shifts randomly assigned to exercise and n=27 (81% male; 65±11 years) shifts assigned to usual care. n=6 (12%) were lost to follow-up. The exercise group completed 74% of sessions. 27%-89% of secondary outcome data were missing. Frail HD patients outlined several ways to enhance trial procedures. Maintaining ability to undertake activities of daily living and social participation were outcomes of primary importance. Participants desired a varied exercise programme.ConclusionsA definitive RCT is feasible, however a comprehensive exercise programme may be more efficacious than IDC in this population.Trial registration numbersISRCTN11299707; ISRCTN12840463.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Recanalisation therapy in acute ischaemic stroke is highly time-sensitive, and requires early identification of eligible patients to ensure better outcomes. Thus, a number of clinical assessment tools have been developed and this review examines their diagnostic capabilities. METHODS:Diagnostic performance of currently available clinical tools for identification of acute ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes and stroke mimicking conditions was reviewed. A systematic search of the literature published in 2015-2018 was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and The Cochrane Library. Prehospital and in-hospital studies with a minimum sample size of 300 patients reporting diagnostic accuracy were selected. RESULTS:Twenty-five articles were included. Cortical signs (gaze deviation, aphasia and neglect) were shown to be significant indicators of large vessel occlusion (LVO). Sensitivity values for selecting subjects with LVO ranged from 23 to 99% whereas specificity was 24 to 97%. Clinical tools, such as FAST-ED, NIHSS, and RACE incorporating cortical signs as well as motor dysfunction demonstrated the best diagnostic accuracy. Tools for identification of stroke mimics showed sensitivity varying from 44 to 91%, and specificity of 27 to 98% with the best diagnostic performance demonstrated by FABS (90% sensitivity, 91% specificity). Hypertension and younger age predicted intracerebral haemorrhage whereas history of atrial fibrillation and diabetes were associated with ischaemia. There was a variation in approach used to establish the definitive diagnosis. Blinding of the index test assessment was not specified in about 50% of included studies. CONCLUSIONS:A wide range of clinical assessment tools for selecting subjects with acute stroke has been developed in recent years. Assessment of both cortical and motor function using RACE, FAST-ED and NIHSS showed the best diagnostic accuracy values for selecting subjects with LVO. There were limited data on clinical tools that can be used to differentiate between acute ischaemia and haemorrhage. Diagnostic accuracy appeared to be modest for distinguishing between acute stroke and stroke mimics with optimal diagnostic performance demonstrated by the FABS tool. Further prehospital research is required to improve the diagnostic utility of clinical assessments with possible application of a two-step clinical assessment or involvement of simple brain imaging, such as transcranial ultrasonography.

Project description:Background and objectivesA 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, & measurementsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsAll 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.