Dataset Information

The Prognostic and Discriminatory Utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale and Modified Frailty Index Compared to Age.

ABSTRACT: Background: There is no consensus on the optimal method for the assessment of frailty. We compared the prognostic utility of two approaches (modified Frailty Index [mFI], Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS]) in older adults (≥65 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 versus age. Methods: We used a test and validation cohort that enrolled participants hospitalised with COVID-19 between 27 February and 30 June 2020. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic modelling was undertaken, with 28-day mortality as the primary outcome. Nested models were compared between a base model, age and frailty assessments using likelihood ratio testing (LRT) and an area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC). Results: The primary cohort enrolled 998 participants from 13 centres. The median age was 80 (range:65-101), 453 (45%) were female, and 377 (37.8%) died within 28 days. The sample was replicated in a validation cohort of two additional centres (n = 672) with similar characteristics. In the primary cohort, both mFI and CFS were associated with mortality in the base models. There was improved precision when fitting CFS to the base model +mFI (LRT = 25.87, p < 0.001); however, there was no improvement when fitting mFI to the base model +CFS (LRT = 1.99, p = 0.16). AUROC suggested increased discrimination when fitting CFS compared to age (p = 0.02) and age +mFI (p = 0.03). In contrast, the mFI offered no improved discrimination in any comparison (p > 0.05). Similar findings were seen in the validation cohort. Conclusions: These observations suggest the CFS has superior prognostic value to mFI in predicting mortality following COVID-19. Our data do not support the use of the mFI as a tool to aid clinical decision-making and prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Carter B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9498791 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Prognostic and Discriminatory Utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale and Modified Frailty Index Compared to Age.

Carter Ben B Keevil Victoria L VL Anand Atul A Osuafor Christopher N CN Goudie Robert J B RJB Preller Jacobus J Lowry Matthew M Clunie Sarah S Shenkin Susan D SD McCarthy Kathryn K Hewitt Jonathan J Quinn Terence J TJ

Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) 20220824 5

Background: There is no consensus on the optimal method for the assessment of frailty. We compared the prognostic utility of two approaches (modified Frailty Index [mFI], Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS]) in older adults (≥65 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 versus age. Methods: We used a test and validation cohort that enrolled participants hospitalised with COVID-19 between 27 February and 30 June 2020. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic modelling was undertaken, with 28-day mortality as the pr ...[more]

PMID: 36136796

Similar Datasets

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.

Dataset Information

The Prognostic and Discriminatory Utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale and Modified Frailty Index Compared to Age.

Publications

The Prognostic and Discriminatory Utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale and Modified Frailty Index Compared to Age.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets