Joninah Braunschweig, Wei Lang, Gregor Freystätter, Christian Hierholzer, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Michael Gagesch
{"title":"老年创伤患者的虚弱评估:比较弗里德虚弱表型完整版和精简版的预测价值。","authors":"Joninah Braunschweig, Wei Lang, Gregor Freystätter, Christian Hierholzer, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Michael Gagesch","doi":"10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty is associated with multiple negative outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. Simultaneously, frailty assessment including physical measurements for weakness (grip strength) and slowness (gait speed) poses challenges in this vulnerable patient group. We aimed to compare the full 5-component Fried Frailty Phenotype (fFP) and a condensed model (cFP) without physical measurements, with regard to predicting hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition (DD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective cohort study in patients aged 70 years and older at a level I trauma center undergoing frailty assessment by 5-component fFP (fatigue, low activity level, weight loss, weakness, and slowness). For the cFP, only fatigue, low activity level and weight loss were included. Co-primary outcomes were LOS and DD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 233 of 366 patients, information on all 5 frailty components was available (mean age 81.0 years [SD 6.7], 57.8% women) and included in our comparative analysis. Frailty prevalence was 25.1% and 3.1% by fFP and cFP, respectively. LOS did not differ significantly between frail and non-frail patients, neither using the fFP (p = .245) nor the cFP (p = .97). By the fFP, frail patients were 94% less likely to be discharged home independently (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.007-0.50, p = .0097), while using cFP, none of the frail patients were discharged home independently.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The fFP appears superior in identifying frail trauma patients and predicting their discharge destination compared with the condensed version. LOS in this vulnerable patient group did not differ by either frailty phenotype even if compared with those identified as non-frail.</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"24 1","pages":"1007"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frailty assessment in geriatric trauma patients: comparing the predictive value of the full and a condensed version of the Fried frailty phenotype.\",\"authors\":\"Joninah Braunschweig, Wei Lang, Gregor Freystätter, Christian Hierholzer, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Michael Gagesch\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty is associated with multiple negative outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. Simultaneously, frailty assessment including physical measurements for weakness (grip strength) and slowness (gait speed) poses challenges in this vulnerable patient group. We aimed to compare the full 5-component Fried Frailty Phenotype (fFP) and a condensed model (cFP) without physical measurements, with regard to predicting hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition (DD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective cohort study in patients aged 70 years and older at a level I trauma center undergoing frailty assessment by 5-component fFP (fatigue, low activity level, weight loss, weakness, and slowness). For the cFP, only fatigue, low activity level and weight loss were included. Co-primary outcomes were LOS and DD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 233 of 366 patients, information on all 5 frailty components was available (mean age 81.0 years [SD 6.7], 57.8% women) and included in our comparative analysis. Frailty prevalence was 25.1% and 3.1% by fFP and cFP, respectively. LOS did not differ significantly between frail and non-frail patients, neither using the fFP (p = .245) nor the cFP (p = .97). By the fFP, frail patients were 94% less likely to be discharged home independently (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.007-0.50, p = .0097), while using cFP, none of the frail patients were discharged home independently.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The fFP appears superior in identifying frail trauma patients and predicting their discharge destination compared with the condensed version. LOS in this vulnerable patient group did not differ by either frailty phenotype even if compared with those identified as non-frail.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Geriatrics\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1007\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Geriatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Frailty assessment in geriatric trauma patients: comparing the predictive value of the full and a condensed version of the Fried frailty phenotype.
Background: Frailty is associated with multiple negative outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. Simultaneously, frailty assessment including physical measurements for weakness (grip strength) and slowness (gait speed) poses challenges in this vulnerable patient group. We aimed to compare the full 5-component Fried Frailty Phenotype (fFP) and a condensed model (cFP) without physical measurements, with regard to predicting hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition (DD).
Methods: Prospective cohort study in patients aged 70 years and older at a level I trauma center undergoing frailty assessment by 5-component fFP (fatigue, low activity level, weight loss, weakness, and slowness). For the cFP, only fatigue, low activity level and weight loss were included. Co-primary outcomes were LOS and DD.
Results: In 233 of 366 patients, information on all 5 frailty components was available (mean age 81.0 years [SD 6.7], 57.8% women) and included in our comparative analysis. Frailty prevalence was 25.1% and 3.1% by fFP and cFP, respectively. LOS did not differ significantly between frail and non-frail patients, neither using the fFP (p = .245) nor the cFP (p = .97). By the fFP, frail patients were 94% less likely to be discharged home independently (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.007-0.50, p = .0097), while using cFP, none of the frail patients were discharged home independently.
Conclusion: The fFP appears superior in identifying frail trauma patients and predicting their discharge destination compared with the condensed version. LOS in this vulnerable patient group did not differ by either frailty phenotype even if compared with those identified as non-frail.
期刊介绍:
BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.