Dataset Information

External validation of the hospital frailty risk score among older adults receiving mechanical ventilation.

ABSTRACT: To externally validate the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) in critically ill patients. We selected older adult (≥ 75 years old) hospitalizations receiving mechanical ventilation, using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (January 1, 2016-November 30, 2018). Frailty risk was subcategorized into low-risk (HFRS score < 5), intermediate-risk (score 5-15), and high-risk (score > 15). We evaluated the HFRS to predict in-hospital mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and 30-day readmissions, using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Model performance was assessed using the c-statistic, Brier score, and calibration plots. Among 649,330 weighted hospitalizations, 9.5%, 68.3%, and 22.2% were subcategorized as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk for frailty, respectively. After adjustment, high-risk patient hospitalizations were associated with increased risks of prolonged hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.59 [95% confidence interval [CI] 5.24-5.97], c-statistic 0.694, Brier 0.216) and 30-day readmissions (aOR 1.20 [95% CI 1.13-1.27], c-statistic 0.595, Brier 0.162), compared to low-risk hospitalizations. Conversely, high-risk hospitalizations were inversely associated with in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.46 [95% CI 0.45-0.48], c-statistic 0.712, Brier 0.214). The HFRS was not successfully validated to predict in-hospital mortality in critically ill older adults. While it may predict other outcomes, its use should be avoided in the critically ill.

SUBMITTER: Sy E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9418158 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of the hospital frailty risk score among older adults receiving mechanical ventilation.

Sy Eric E Kassir Sandy S Mailman Jonathan F JF Sy Sarah L SL

Scientific reports 20220826 1

To externally validate the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) in critically ill patients. We selected older adult (≥ 75 years old) hospitalizations receiving mechanical ventilation, using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (January 1, 2016-November 30, 2018). Frailty risk was subcategorized into low-risk (HFRS score < 5), intermediate-risk (score 5-15), and high-risk (score > 15). We evaluated the HFRS to predict in-hospital mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and 30-day readmissions, using ...[more]

PMID: 36028750

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFrailty is associated with severe morbidity and mortality among people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Interventions such as pulmonary rehabilitation can treat and reverse frailty, yet frailty is not routinely measured in pulmonary clinical practice. It is unclear how population-based administrative data tools to screen for frailty compare with standard bedside assessments in this population.ObjectiveTo determine the agreement between the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) among hospitalized individuals with COPD and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the HFRS (vs CFS) to detect frailty.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was conducted among hospitalized patients with COPD exacerbation. The study was conducted in the respiratory ward of a single tertiary care academic hospital (The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). Participants included consenting adult inpatients who were admitted with a diagnosis of acute COPD exacerbation from December 2016 to June 2019 and who used a clinical care pathway for COPD. There were no specific exclusion criteria. Data analysis was performed in March 2022.ExposureDegree of frailty measured by the CFS.Main outcomes and measuresThe HFRS was calculated using hospital administrative data. Primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the HFRS to detect frail and nonfrail individuals according to CFS assessments of frailty, and the secondary outcome was the optimal probability threshold of the HFRS to discriminate frail and nonfrail individuals.ResultsAmong 99 patients with COPD exacerbation (mean [SD] age, 70.6 [9.5] years; 56 women [57%]), 14 (14%) were not frail, 33 (33%) were vulnerable, 18 (18%) were mildly frail, and 34 (34%) were moderately to severely frail by the CFS. The HFRS (vs CFS) had a sensitivity of 27% and specificity of 93% to detect frail vs nonfrail individuals. The optimal probability threshold for the HFRS was 1.4 points or higher. The corresponding sensitivity to detect frailty was 69%, and the specificity was 57%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, using the population-based HFRS to screen for frailty yielded poor detection of frailty among hospitalized patients with COPD compared with the bedside CFS. These findings suggest that use of the HFRS in this population may result in important missed opportunities to identify and provide early intervention for frailty, such as pulmonary rehabilitation.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improves the prognosis of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). The six-factor RESCUE-IHCA score (resuscitation using ECPR during IHCA) was developed to predict outcomes of post-IHCA ECPR-treated adult patients. Our goal was to validate the score in an Asian medical center with a high volume and experience of ECPR performance and to compare the differences in patient characteristics between the current study and the original cohort in a 2022 observational study.MethodFor this single-center, retrospective cohort study we enrolled 324 ECPR-treated adult IHCA patients. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) to externally validate the RESCUE-IHCA score. The calibration of the model was tested by the decile calibration plot as well as Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit with an associated P-value.ResultsOf the 324 participants, 231 (71%) died before hospital discharge. The discriminative performance of the RESCUE-IHCA score was comparable with the originally validated cohort, with an AUC of 0.63. A prolonged duration of cardiac arrest was associated with an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.03, P = .006). An initial rhythm of ventricular tachycardia (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.51, P = .003), ventricular fibrillation (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.46, P = .003), and palpable pulse (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.92, P = 0.04) were associated with a reduced mortality risk compared to asystole or pulseless electrical activity. In contrast to the original study, age (P = 0.28), resuscitation timing (P = 0.14), disease category (P = 0.18), and pre-existing renal insufficiency (P = 0.12) were not associated with in-hospital death.ConclusionIn external validation, the RESCUE-IHCA score exhibited performance comparable to its original validation within the single-center population. Further investigation on hospital experience, time-of-day effect, and specific disease categories is warranted to improve the selection criteria for ECPR candidates during IHCA.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open ('recruit') collapsed lung units and increase the number of alveoli participating in tidal ventilation. Recruitment manoeuvres are often used to treat patients in intensive care who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2009.ObjectivesOur primary objective was to determine the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Our secondary objective was to determine, in the same population, the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on oxygenation and adverse events (e.g. rate of barotrauma).Search methodsFor this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to August 2016.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults who were mechanically ventilated that compared recruitment manoeuvres versus standard care for patients given a diagnosis of ARDS.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.Main resultsTen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsWe identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an "open lung ventilation strategy", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome.

Dataset Information

External validation of the hospital frailty risk score among older adults receiving mechanical ventilation.

Publications

External validation of the hospital frailty risk score among older adults receiving mechanical ventilation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets