Transition in Frailty State Among Elderly Patients After Vascular Surgery.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Frailty in the vascular surgical ward is common and predicts poor surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze transitions in frailty state in elderly patients after vascular surgery and to evaluate influence of patient characteristics on this transition. METHODS:Between 2014 and 2018, 310 patients,??65 years and scheduled for elective vascular surgery, were included in this cohort study. Transition in frailty state between preoperative and follow-up measurement was determined using the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), a validated tool to measure frailty in vascular surgery patients. Frailty is defined as a GFI score??4. Patient characteristics leading to a transition in frailty state were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS:Mean age was 72.7?±?5.2 years, and 74.5% were male. Mean follow-up time was 22.7?±?9.5 months. At baseline measurement, 79 patients (25.5%) were considered frail. In total, 64 non-frail patients (20.6%) shifted to frail and 29 frail patients (9.4%) to non-frail. Frail patients with a high Charlson Comorbidity Index (HR?=?0.329 (CI: 0.133-0.812), p?=?0.016) and that underwent a major vascular intervention (HR?=?0.365 (CI: 0.154-0.865), p?=?0.022) had a significantly higher risk to remain frail after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study, showing that after vascular surgery almost 21% of the non-frail patients become frail, may lead to a more effective shared decision-making process when considering treatment options, by providing more insight in the postoperative frailty course of patients.
Project description:PURPOSE:Frailty is the body's failure to return to homeostasis after every day or acute stressful events, causing adverse outcomes. To study its dynamics in kidney transplant recipients (KTR), we determined whether the degree of frailty and its domains are affected by kidney transplantation (KT). METHODS:Between 2015 and 2017, 176 KTR were included. Frailty scores were measured using the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), assessed preoperatively and during follow-up. Transitions in frailty state and changes in the individual domains were determined. RESULTS:Mean age (±SD) was 51.8 (±?14.1) years, and 63.1% of KTR were male. Thirty patients were considered frail (GFI???4) at baseline. After a mean follow-up of 22.8?±?8.3 months, 34 non-frail patients (19.3%) became frail, 125 patients (71.0%) remained the same, and 17 frail patients (9.7%) became non-frail (GFI?<?4). In the domain psychosocial functioning, 28.4% of the patients had an increase in GFI score after follow-up. Patients who scored a point in the domain cognition at baseline had a greater chance of becoming frail (OR 4.38, 95% CI 0.59-32.24). CONCLUSION:In conclusion, almost one-fifth of non-frail KTR transitioned to a frail state after their transplantation. These results could be used to predict the impact of KT on frailty course and help with implementing prehabilitation for patients at risk.
Project description:Frailty is considered a predictor for negative outcomes such as disability, decreased quality of life, and hospital admission. Frailty measures have been developed that include different dimensions. We examined whether people who are physically frail are more at risk for negative outcomes of frailty if they also suffer from psychological, cognitive, or social frailty. Frailty was measured at baseline by means of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), which comprises a physical, cognitive, social, and psychological dimension. Only frail persons were included in the study (GFI ≥ 5) that, in addition, had to be frail in the physical dimension (i.e., ≥1 on this dimension). IADL disability and quality of life were measured at baseline and at 12 months. Hospital admission was assessed during this period. In this, physically frail sample effects of the other three frailty dimensions were studied in regression models. The sample (n = 334, mean age 78.1, and range 70-92) included 40.1 % frail men and 59.9 % frail women. Overall, no additional effects for the cognitive, social, or psychosocial dimensions were found: other frailty dimensions did not have an additional impact on disability, quality of life, or hospital admission in people who already suffered from physical frailty. Higher scores of physical frailty were significantly related to IADL disability (p < 0.05) and hospital admission (p < 0.05). Additional analysis showed that the physical frailty score predicted IADL disability and hospital admission better than the GFI overall score. Results of this study suggest that persons, who are physically frail, according to the GFI, are not more at risk for negative outcomes of frailty (i.e., IADL disability, decreased quality of life, and hospital admission) if they in addition suffer from cognitive, social, or psychological frailty. In addition, for the prediction of IADL disability or hospital admission, the focus for screening should be on the physical frailty score instead of the GFI overall score including different dimensions.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Early identification of frailty is important for proactive primary care. Currently, however, there is no consensus on which measure to use. Therefore, we examined whether a Frailty Index (FI), based on ICPC-coded primary care data, and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire identify the same older people as frail. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of 1,580 patients aged ??60 years in a Dutch primary care center. Patients received a GFI questionnaire and were surveyed on their baseline characteristics. Frailty-screening software calculated their FI score. The GFI and FI scores were compared as continuous and dichotomised measures. RESULTS: FI data were available for 1549 patients (98%). 663 patients (42%) returned their GFI questionnaire. Complete GFI and FI scores were available for 638 patients (40.4%), mean age 73.4 years, 52.8% female. There was a positive correlation between the GFI and the FI (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.544). Using dichotomised scores, 84.3% of patients with a low FI score also had a low GFI score. In patients with a high FI score, 55.1% also had a high GFI score. A continuous FI score accurately predicted a dichotomised GFI score (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82). Being widowed or divorced was an independent predictor of both a high GFI score in patients with a low FI score, and a high FI score in patients with a low GFI score. CONCLUSIONS: The FI and the GFI moderately overlap in identifying frailty in community-dwelling older patients. To provide optimal proactive primary care, we suggest an initial FI screening in routine healthcare data, followed by a GFI questionnaire for patients with a high FI score or otherwise at high risk as the preferred two-step frailty screening process in primary care.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Due to the rapidly increasing number of older people worldwide, the prevalence of frailty among older adults is expected to escalate in coming decades. It is crucial to recognize early onset symptoms to initiate specific preventive care. Therefore, early detection of frailty with appropriate screening instruments is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the underlying dimensionality of the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), a widely used self-report screening instrument for identifying frail older adults. In addition, criterion validity of GFI subscales was examined and composition of GFI scores was evaluated.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate the structural validity, internal consistency and criterion validity of the GFI questionnaire in older adults aged 65 years and older. All subjects completed the GFI questionnaire (n = 1508). To assess criterion validity, a smaller sample of 119 older adults completed additional questionnaires: De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, RAND-36 physical functioning, and perceived general health item of the EuroQol-5D. Exploratory factor analysis and Mokken scale analysis were used to evaluate the structural validity of the GFI. A Venn diagram was constructed to show the composition of GFI subscale scores for frail subjects.<h4>Results</h4>The factor structure of the GFI supported a three-dimensional structure of the scale. The subscales Daily Activities and Psychosocial Functioning showed good internal consistency, scalability, and criterion validity (Daily Activities: Cronbach's ? = 0.81, H(s) = .84, r = -.62; Psychosocial Functioning: Cronbach's ? = 0.80, H(s) = .35, r = -.48). The subscale Health Problems showed less strong internal consistency but acceptable scalability and criterion validity (Cronbach's ? = .57, H(s) = .35, r = -.48). The present data suggest that 90% of the frail older adults experience problems in the Psychosocial Functioning domain.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The present findings support a three-dimensional factor structure of the GFI, suggesting that a multidimensional assessment of frailty with the GFI is possible. These GFI subscale scores produce a richer assessment of frailty than with a single overall sum GFI score, and likely their use will contribute to more directed and customized care for older adults.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Frailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (> or = 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income. CONCLUSIONS: The GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to examine the pattern of changes over time in health status (HS) and quality of life (QoL) in the first year after hip fracture and to quantify the association between frailty at the onset of hip fracture and the change in HS and QoL 1?year later. The major hypothesis was that frailty, a clinical state of increased vulnerability, is a good predictor of QoL in patients recovering from hip fracture. DESIGN:Prospective, observational, follow-up cohort study. SETTING:Secondary care. Ten participating centres in Brabant, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:1091 patients entered the study and 696 patients completed the study. Patients with a hip fracture aged 65 years and older or proxy respondents for patients with cognitive impairment were included in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes were HS (EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire) and capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people). Prefracture frailty was defined with the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), with GFI ?4 indicating frailty. Participants were followed up at 1?month, 3?months, 6?months and 1?year after hospital admission. RESULTS:In total, 371 patients (53.3%) were considered frail. Frailty was negatively associated with HS (? -0.333; 95%?CI -0.366 to -0.299), self-rated health (? -21.9; 95%?CI -24.2 to -19.6) and capability well-being (? -0.296; 95%?CI -0.322 to -0.270) in elderly patients 1?year after hip fracture. After adjusting for confounders, including death, prefracture HS, age, prefracture residential status, prefracture mobility, American Society of Anesthesiologists grading and dementia, associations were weakened but remained significant. CONCLUSIONS:We revealed that frailty is negatively associated with QoL 1?year after hip fracture, even after adjusting for confounders. This finding suggests that early identification of prefracture frailty in patients with a hip fracture is important for prognostic counselling, care planning and the tailoring of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02508675.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty is the loss of ability to withstand a physiological stressor and is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in older people. Trials to prevent or ameliorate frailty are in their infancy. A range of different outcome measures have been proposed, but current measures require either large sample sizes, long follow-up, or do not directly measure the construct of frailty. METHODS:We propose a composite outcome for frailty prevention trials, comprising progression to the frail state, death, or being too unwell to continue in a trial. To determine likely event rates, we used data from the English Longitudinal Study for Ageing, collected 4?years apart. We calculated transition rates between non-frail, prefrail, frail or loss to follow up due to death or illness. We used Markov state transition models to interpolate one- and two-year transition rates and performed sample size calculations for a range of differences in transition rates using simple and composite outcomes. RESULTS:The frailty category was calculable for 4650 individuals at baseline (2226 non-frail, 1907 prefrail, 517 frail); at follow up, 1282 were non-frail, 1108 were prefrail, 318 were frail and 1936 had dropped out or were unable to complete all tests for frailty. Transition probabilities for those prefrail at baseline, measured at wave 4 were respectively 0.176, 0.286, 0.096 and 0.442 to non-frail, prefrail, frail and dead/dropped out. Interpolated transition probabilities were 0.159, 0.494, 0.113 and 0.234 at two years, and 0.108, 0.688, 0.087 and 0.117 at one year. Required sample sizes for a two-year outcome in a two-arm trial were between 1040 and 7242 for transition from prefrailty to frailty alone, 246 to 1630 for transition to the composite measure, and 76 to 354 using the composite measure with an ordinal logistic regression approach. CONCLUSION:Use of a composite outcome for frailty trials offers reduced sample sizes and could ameliorate the effect of high loss to follow up inherent in such trials due to death and illness.
Project description:BACKGROUND: If brief and easy to use self report screening tools are available to identify frail elderly, this may avoid costs and unnecessary assessment of healthy people. This study investigates the predictive validity of three self-report instruments for identifying community-dwelling frail elderly. METHODS: This is a prospective study with 1-year follow-up among community-dwelling elderly aged 70 or older (n = 430) to test sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicted values of the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Tilburg Frailty Indicator and Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire on development of disabilities, hospital admission and mortality. Odds ratios were calculated to compare frail versus non-frail groups for their risk for the adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Adjusted odds ratios show that those identified as frail have more than twice the risk (GFI, 2.62; TFI, 2.00; SPQ, 2,49) for developing disabilities compared to the non-frail group; those identified as frail by the TFI and SPQ have more than twice the risk of being admitted to a hospital. Sensitivity and specificity for development of disabilities are 71% and 63% (GFI), 62% and 71% (TFI) and 83% and 48% (SPQ). Regarding mortality, sensitivity for all tools are about 70% and specificity between 41% and 61%. For hospital admission, SPQ scores the highest for sensitivity (76%). CONCLUSION: All three instruments do have potential to identify older persons at risk, but their predictive power is not sufficient yet. Further research on these and other instruments is needed to improve targeting frail elderly.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty is a state of vulnerability to diverse stressors. We assessed the impact of frailty on outcomes after discharge in older surgical patients. METHODS:We prospectively followed patients 65 years of age or older who underwent emergency abdominal surgery at either of 2 tertiary care centres and who needed assistance with fewer than 3 activities of daily living. Preadmission frailty was defined according to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale as "well" (score 1 or 2), "vulnerable" (score 3 or 4) or "frail" (score 5 or 6). We assessed composite end points of 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission or death by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS:Of 308 patients (median age 75 [range 65-94] yr, median Clinical Frailty Score 3 [range 1-6]), 168 (54.5%) were classified as vulnerable and 68 (22.1%) as frail. Ten (4.2%) of those classified as vulnerable or frail received a geriatric consultation. At 30 days after discharge, the proportions of patients who were readmitted or had died were greater among vulnerable patients (n = 27 [16.1%]; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-16.45) and frail patients (n = 12 [17.6%]; adjusted OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.13-17.94) than among patients who were well (n = 3 [4.2%]). By 6 months, the degree of frailty independently and dose-dependently predicted readmission or death: 56 (33.3%) of the vulnerable patients (adjusted OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.01-4.55) and 37 (54.4%) of the frail patients (adjusted OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.32-8.12) were readmitted or had died, compared with 11 (15.3%) of the patients who were well. INTERPRETATION:Vulnerability and frailty were prevalent in older patients undergoing surgery and unlikely to trigger specialized geriatric assessment, yet remained independently associated with greater risk of readmission for as long as 6 months after discharge. Therefore, the degree of frailty has important prognostic value for readmission. TRIAL REGISTRATION FOR PRIMARY STUDY:ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02233153.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Frailty among older people is related to an increased risk of adverse health outcomes such as acute and chronic diseases, disability and mortality. Although many intervention studies for frail older people have been reported, only a few have shown positive effects regarding disability prevention. This article presents the design of a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a primary care intervention that combines the most promising elements of disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people.<h4>Methods/design</h4>In this study twelve general practitioner practices were randomly allocated to the intervention group (6 practices) or to the control group (6 practices). Three thousand four hundred ninety-eight screening questionnaires including the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) were sent out to identify frail older people. Based on their GFI score (?5), 360 participants will be included in the study. The intervention will receive an interdisciplinary primary care intervention. After a comprehensive assessment by a practice nurse and additional assessments by other professionals, if needed, an individual action plan will be defined. The action plan is related to a flexible toolbox of interventions, which will be conducted by an interdisciplinary team. Effects of the intervention, both for the frail older people and their informal caregivers, will be measured after 6, 12 and 24 months using postal questionnaires and telephone interviews. Data for the process evaluation and economic evaluation will be gathered continuously over a 24-month period.<h4>Discussion</h4>The proposed study will provide information about the usefulness of an interdisciplinary primary care intervention. The postal screening procedure was conducted in two cycles between December 2009 and April 2010 and turned out to be a feasible method. The response rate was 79.7%. According to GFI scores 29.3% of the respondents can be considered as frail (GFI ? 5). Nearly half of them (48.1%) were willing to participate. The baseline measurements started in January 2010. In February 2010 the first older people were approached by the practice nurse for a comprehensive assessment. Data on the effect, process, and economic evaluation will be available in 2012.<h4>Trial registration</h4>ISRCTN31954692.