Cargando…

Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with adverse events in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to compare the prognostic value of four frailty scales in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized with ACS in a cardiac care unit (CCU). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nowak, Wojciech, Kowalik, Ilona, Kuzin, Małgorzata, Krauze, Agnieszka, Mierzyńska, Anna, Sadowy, Ewa, Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, Stępińska, Janina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Science Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9170905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35722033
http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.05.010
_version_ 1784721535738576896
author Nowak, Wojciech
Kowalik, Ilona
Kuzin, Małgorzata
Krauze, Agnieszka
Mierzyńska, Anna
Sadowy, Ewa
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil
Stępińska, Janina
author_facet Nowak, Wojciech
Kowalik, Ilona
Kuzin, Małgorzata
Krauze, Agnieszka
Mierzyńska, Anna
Sadowy, Ewa
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil
Stępińska, Janina
author_sort Nowak, Wojciech
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with adverse events in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to compare the prognostic value of four frailty scales in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized with ACS in a cardiac care unit (CCU). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were included. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty scale (reference standard), the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), the FRAIL scale, and the Clinical frailty scale (CFS). The primary end point was all-cause mortality and the secondary end point was unscheduled rehospitalization. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy four patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were recruited. The median follow-up was 637.5 days. Frailty was identified in 41.4%, 40.2%, 39.1% and 36.3% patients by the Fried frailty scale, EFS, FRAIL scale and CFS, respectively. The agreement coefficients were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.79 for the FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS, respectively. In the Cox regression model, frailty was associated with all-cause mortality regardless of the scale used (univariate: hazard ratio [HR] 95% CI = 10.5, 2.4–46.8 Fried frailty scale; 12.0, 2.7–53.4 FRAIL scale; 7.1, 2.0–25.2 EFS; 8.3, 2.4–29.6 CFS. Multivariate: HR = 5.1, 1.1–23.8 Fried frailty scale; 5.7, 1.2–26.8 FRAIL scale; 3.7, 1.0–14.0 EFS; 4.2, 1.1–15.9 CFS). The FRAIL scale had the highest HR. In the univariate analysis, frailty was associated with unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 3.2, 1.7–6.0 Fried frailty scale; 3.4, 1.8–6.3 FRAIL scale; 3.5, 1.8–6.6 EFS; 3.1, 1.7–5.8 CFS). In the multivariate analysis, only the EFS independently predicted unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 2.2, 1.1–4.63). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessed by the Fried frailty scale, FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS is associated with all-cause mortality and unscheduled rehospitalization in elderly patients hospitalized in a CCU with ACS. The adjusted HR of the FRAIL scale for all-cause mortality was the highest among the scales compared, whereas the EFS was an independent predictor of unscheduled rehospitalization. These data should be taken into consideration when choosing a frailty assessment tool.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9170905
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Science Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91709052022-06-17 Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome Nowak, Wojciech Kowalik, Ilona Kuzin, Małgorzata Krauze, Agnieszka Mierzyńska, Anna Sadowy, Ewa Marcinkiewicz, Kamil Stępińska, Janina J Geriatr Cardiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with adverse events in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to compare the prognostic value of four frailty scales in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized with ACS in a cardiac care unit (CCU). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were included. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty scale (reference standard), the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), the FRAIL scale, and the Clinical frailty scale (CFS). The primary end point was all-cause mortality and the secondary end point was unscheduled rehospitalization. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy four patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were recruited. The median follow-up was 637.5 days. Frailty was identified in 41.4%, 40.2%, 39.1% and 36.3% patients by the Fried frailty scale, EFS, FRAIL scale and CFS, respectively. The agreement coefficients were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.79 for the FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS, respectively. In the Cox regression model, frailty was associated with all-cause mortality regardless of the scale used (univariate: hazard ratio [HR] 95% CI = 10.5, 2.4–46.8 Fried frailty scale; 12.0, 2.7–53.4 FRAIL scale; 7.1, 2.0–25.2 EFS; 8.3, 2.4–29.6 CFS. Multivariate: HR = 5.1, 1.1–23.8 Fried frailty scale; 5.7, 1.2–26.8 FRAIL scale; 3.7, 1.0–14.0 EFS; 4.2, 1.1–15.9 CFS). The FRAIL scale had the highest HR. In the univariate analysis, frailty was associated with unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 3.2, 1.7–6.0 Fried frailty scale; 3.4, 1.8–6.3 FRAIL scale; 3.5, 1.8–6.6 EFS; 3.1, 1.7–5.8 CFS). In the multivariate analysis, only the EFS independently predicted unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 2.2, 1.1–4.63). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessed by the Fried frailty scale, FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS is associated with all-cause mortality and unscheduled rehospitalization in elderly patients hospitalized in a CCU with ACS. The adjusted HR of the FRAIL scale for all-cause mortality was the highest among the scales compared, whereas the EFS was an independent predictor of unscheduled rehospitalization. These data should be taken into consideration when choosing a frailty assessment tool. Science Press 2022-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9170905/ /pubmed/35722033 http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.05.010 Text en Copyright and License information: Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
spellingShingle Research Article
Nowak, Wojciech
Kowalik, Ilona
Kuzin, Małgorzata
Krauze, Agnieszka
Mierzyńska, Anna
Sadowy, Ewa
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil
Stępińska, Janina
Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
title Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
title_full Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
title_fullStr Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
title_short Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
title_sort comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9170905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35722033
http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.05.010
work_keys_str_mv AT nowakwojciech comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT kowalikilona comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT kuzinmałgorzata comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT krauzeagnieszka comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT mierzynskaanna comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT sadowyewa comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT marcinkiewiczkamil comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome
AT stepinskajanina comparisonoftheprognosticvalueoffrailtyassessmenttoolsinpatientsaged65yearshospitalizedinacardiaccareunitwithacutecoronarysyndrome