Abrar-Ahmad Zulfiqar, Mathieu Fresne, André Gillibert
{"title":"[SEGA frailty scale in emergency: back to basics].","authors":"Abrar-Ahmad Zulfiqar, Mathieu Fresne, André Gillibert","doi":"10.1684/pnv.2024.1161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Can the SEGA scale, implemented in the emergency department, effectively predict morbidity and mortality? A prospective study was conducted from January 30, 2018, to July 16, 2018, at the Emergency Department of Chaumont Hospital. Patients aged over 65 were included, while those under 65, in palliative care, or in a life-threatening emergency were excluded. The SEGAm score was calculated for each included patient, and their outcomes were assessed at the end of the emergency department visit and one year later. A total of 278 subjects were included. Vital status at one year was known for all subjects, with no loss to follow-up or censoring. At one year, 56 patients out of 278 (20.1%, 95% CI 15.6% to 25.3%) had died, with less than half of these deaths (n = 25) occurring after readmission to the emergency department or during the emergency visit. The average age was 82 ± 8.2 years, with 158 women and 120 men. Regarding living arrangements, 130 (46.8%) lived at home without caregivers, 100 (36%) lived at home with caregivers, and 48 (17.3%) lived in nursing homes. The average Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5.49 ± 1.99, with an average number of medications of 7.52. The primary methods of referral were as follows: C15 for 144 patients (51.8%), general practitioner for 59 patients (21.2%), spontaneous consultation for 58 patients (20.9%), and family referral for 8 patients (2.9%). The main reasons for admission were falls for 55 patients (19.8%), dyspnea for 33 patients (11.9%), and other reasons for 60 patients (21.6%). Post-emergency department disposition included hospitalization for 167 patients (60.1%) and discharge for 111 patients (39.9%), with no deaths occurring during this period. The SEGAm frailty score (grid A) had an average completion time of 8.18 min ± 3.64. A score of ≤ 8 was found for 85 patients (30.6%), a score between 9 and 11 for 51 patients (18.3%), and a score ≥ 12 for 142 patients (51.1%). In this geriatric population, the risk of death at 12 months was estimated at 31% (95% CI 23.5% to 39.3%) for subjects with a SEGA score exceeding 12, compared to approximately 10% for those with lower SEGA scores. The risk of death or readmission was 52.8% (95% CI 44.3% to 61.2%) for subjects with a SEGA score exceeding 12, compared to 20% to 30% for those with lower SEGA scores. The SEGA score provides valuable prognostic information that is not fully captured by the Charlson score or reason for hospitalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":51244,"journal":{"name":"Geriatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie De Vieillissement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geriatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie De Vieillissement","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1684/pnv.2024.1161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Can the SEGA scale, implemented in the emergency department, effectively predict morbidity and mortality? A prospective study was conducted from January 30, 2018, to July 16, 2018, at the Emergency Department of Chaumont Hospital. Patients aged over 65 were included, while those under 65, in palliative care, or in a life-threatening emergency were excluded. The SEGAm score was calculated for each included patient, and their outcomes were assessed at the end of the emergency department visit and one year later. A total of 278 subjects were included. Vital status at one year was known for all subjects, with no loss to follow-up or censoring. At one year, 56 patients out of 278 (20.1%, 95% CI 15.6% to 25.3%) had died, with less than half of these deaths (n = 25) occurring after readmission to the emergency department or during the emergency visit. The average age was 82 ± 8.2 years, with 158 women and 120 men. Regarding living arrangements, 130 (46.8%) lived at home without caregivers, 100 (36%) lived at home with caregivers, and 48 (17.3%) lived in nursing homes. The average Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5.49 ± 1.99, with an average number of medications of 7.52. The primary methods of referral were as follows: C15 for 144 patients (51.8%), general practitioner for 59 patients (21.2%), spontaneous consultation for 58 patients (20.9%), and family referral for 8 patients (2.9%). The main reasons for admission were falls for 55 patients (19.8%), dyspnea for 33 patients (11.9%), and other reasons for 60 patients (21.6%). Post-emergency department disposition included hospitalization for 167 patients (60.1%) and discharge for 111 patients (39.9%), with no deaths occurring during this period. The SEGAm frailty score (grid A) had an average completion time of 8.18 min ± 3.64. A score of ≤ 8 was found for 85 patients (30.6%), a score between 9 and 11 for 51 patients (18.3%), and a score ≥ 12 for 142 patients (51.1%). In this geriatric population, the risk of death at 12 months was estimated at 31% (95% CI 23.5% to 39.3%) for subjects with a SEGA score exceeding 12, compared to approximately 10% for those with lower SEGA scores. The risk of death or readmission was 52.8% (95% CI 44.3% to 61.2%) for subjects with a SEGA score exceeding 12, compared to 20% to 30% for those with lower SEGA scores. The SEGA score provides valuable prognostic information that is not fully captured by the Charlson score or reason for hospitalization.
期刊介绍:
D''une qualité scientifique reconnue cette revue est, la première revue francophone gériatrique et psychologique indexée dans les principales bases de données internationales. Elle couvre tous les aspects médicaux, psychologiques, sanitaires et sociaux liés au suivi et à la prise en charge de la personne âgée.
Que vous soyez psychologues, neurologues, psychiatres, gériatres, gérontologues,... vous trouverez à travers cette approche originale et unique, un veritable outil de formation, de réflexion et d''échanges indispensable à votre pratique professionnelle.