Cargando…

Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults

We aimed to verify the combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults. We used the data of 10,276 Japanese older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who provided valid responses to two frailty assessment tools in a mail survey in Japan’s Kyoto‒Kameoka Prospective cohort study. Frailt...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Watanabe, Daiki, Yoshida, Tsukasa, Yamada, Yosuke, Watanabe, Yuya, Yamada, Minoru, Fujita, Hiroyuki, Miyachi, Motohiko, Arai, Hidenori, Kimura, Misaka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9440890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36057638
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19148-x
_version_ 1784782457668632576
author Watanabe, Daiki
Yoshida, Tsukasa
Yamada, Yosuke
Watanabe, Yuya
Yamada, Minoru
Fujita, Hiroyuki
Miyachi, Motohiko
Arai, Hidenori
Kimura, Misaka
author_facet Watanabe, Daiki
Yoshida, Tsukasa
Yamada, Yosuke
Watanabe, Yuya
Yamada, Minoru
Fujita, Hiroyuki
Miyachi, Motohiko
Arai, Hidenori
Kimura, Misaka
author_sort Watanabe, Daiki
collection PubMed
description We aimed to verify the combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults. We used the data of 10,276 Japanese older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who provided valid responses to two frailty assessment tools in a mail survey in Japan’s Kyoto‒Kameoka Prospective cohort study. Frailty status was categorized into four groups depending on the validated frailty screening index and Kihon Checklist, respectively: Non-frailty (n = 5960), Physical frailty (n = 223), Comprehensive frailty (n = 2211), and Combination (n = 1882) groups. Mortality data were collected between July 30, 2011, and November 30, 2016. We assessed the relationship between frailty status and all-cause mortality risk using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, we recorded 1257 deaths. After adjusting for confounders, the Combination group had the highest mortality risk compared with the other groups [Non-frailty: reference; Physical frailty: hazards ratio [HR], 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 1.70); Comprehensive frailty: 1.91 (1.63 to 2.23); Combination: 2.85 (2.44 to 3.22)]. People who are positive for frailty in both instruments have a higher risk of death than those who are positive to one model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9440890
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94408902022-09-05 Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults Watanabe, Daiki Yoshida, Tsukasa Yamada, Yosuke Watanabe, Yuya Yamada, Minoru Fujita, Hiroyuki Miyachi, Motohiko Arai, Hidenori Kimura, Misaka Sci Rep Article We aimed to verify the combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults. We used the data of 10,276 Japanese older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who provided valid responses to two frailty assessment tools in a mail survey in Japan’s Kyoto‒Kameoka Prospective cohort study. Frailty status was categorized into four groups depending on the validated frailty screening index and Kihon Checklist, respectively: Non-frailty (n = 5960), Physical frailty (n = 223), Comprehensive frailty (n = 2211), and Combination (n = 1882) groups. Mortality data were collected between July 30, 2011, and November 30, 2016. We assessed the relationship between frailty status and all-cause mortality risk using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, we recorded 1257 deaths. After adjusting for confounders, the Combination group had the highest mortality risk compared with the other groups [Non-frailty: reference; Physical frailty: hazards ratio [HR], 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 1.70); Comprehensive frailty: 1.91 (1.63 to 2.23); Combination: 2.85 (2.44 to 3.22)]. People who are positive for frailty in both instruments have a higher risk of death than those who are positive to one model. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9440890/ /pubmed/36057638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19148-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Watanabe, Daiki
Yoshida, Tsukasa
Yamada, Yosuke
Watanabe, Yuya
Yamada, Minoru
Fujita, Hiroyuki
Miyachi, Motohiko
Arai, Hidenori
Kimura, Misaka
Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
title Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
title_full Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
title_fullStr Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
title_full_unstemmed Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
title_short Combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
title_sort combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9440890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36057638
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19148-x
work_keys_str_mv AT watanabedaiki combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT yoshidatsukasa combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT yamadayosuke combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT watanabeyuya combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT yamadaminoru combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT fujitahiroyuki combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT miyachimotohiko combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT araihidenori combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults
AT kimuramisaka combineduseoftwofrailtytoolsinpredictingmortalityinolderadults