临床虚弱评分对三级ICU重症患者预后的影响

IF 1.5 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Sulekha Saxena, Priyamvada Gupta, Puneet Panwar, Ashish Jain, Srishti S Jain, Rohit Jain, Divyansh Gupta, Munesh Meena, Hemraj Acharya, Ravi Jain
{"title":"临床虚弱评分对三级ICU重症患者预后的影响","authors":"Sulekha Saxena, Priyamvada Gupta, Puneet Panwar, Ashish Jain, Srishti S Jain, Rohit Jain, Divyansh Gupta, Munesh Meena, Hemraj Acharya, Ravi Jain","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advanced age is a known marker of vulnerability, but frailty is an independent predictor of poor outcomes in critically ill patients. The clinical frailty score (CFS) facilitates rapid assessment, aiding prognostication, care improvement, and resource allocation, particularly in resource-limited intensive care units (ICUs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from April to September 2023 at a tertiary care ICU. The study included 166 patients aged ≥50 years with ICU stays longer than 48 hours, excluding those with contraindications for care escalation. Data were collected on demographics, Clinical parameters, and scoring systems including acute physiological and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II), sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and CFS. Predictive analyses were performed using receiver operating curve (ROC) curves, cut-offs, and logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of patients was 65 years, with an APACHE-II score of 18 and a CFS of 4. In-hospital mortality was 46.4%. The CFS outperformed other scoring systems in predicting both in-hospital mortality [Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) 0.73] and net negative outcomes (AUC ROC 0.75). Frailty (CFS ≥6) was present in 39.75% of patients, with each unit increase in CFS associated with a 41.8% higher odds of mortality and a 50.7% higher odds of net negative outcomes. The optimal CFS cut-offs were 4 for 80% sensitivity and 6 for 80% specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CFS is a practical and reliable tool for predicting ICU outcomes, outperforming traditional scoring systems. It supports improved decision-making and resource allocation. Further multicenter studies are necessary to validate its broader use in critical care practice.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Saxena S, Gupta P, Panwar P, Jain A, Jain SS, Jain R, <i>et al</i>. Impact of the Clinical Frailty Score on Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients in a Tertiary Care ICU. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(4):320-326.</p>","PeriodicalId":47664,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"320-326"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12045041/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of the Clinical Frailty Score on Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients in a Tertiary Care ICU.\",\"authors\":\"Sulekha Saxena, Priyamvada Gupta, Puneet Panwar, Ashish Jain, Srishti S Jain, Rohit Jain, Divyansh Gupta, Munesh Meena, Hemraj Acharya, Ravi Jain\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advanced age is a known marker of vulnerability, but frailty is an independent predictor of poor outcomes in critically ill patients. The clinical frailty score (CFS) facilitates rapid assessment, aiding prognostication, care improvement, and resource allocation, particularly in resource-limited intensive care units (ICUs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from April to September 2023 at a tertiary care ICU. The study included 166 patients aged ≥50 years with ICU stays longer than 48 hours, excluding those with contraindications for care escalation. Data were collected on demographics, Clinical parameters, and scoring systems including acute physiological and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II), sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and CFS. Predictive analyses were performed using receiver operating curve (ROC) curves, cut-offs, and logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of patients was 65 years, with an APACHE-II score of 18 and a CFS of 4. In-hospital mortality was 46.4%. The CFS outperformed other scoring systems in predicting both in-hospital mortality [Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) 0.73] and net negative outcomes (AUC ROC 0.75). Frailty (CFS ≥6) was present in 39.75% of patients, with each unit increase in CFS associated with a 41.8% higher odds of mortality and a 50.7% higher odds of net negative outcomes. The optimal CFS cut-offs were 4 for 80% sensitivity and 6 for 80% specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CFS is a practical and reliable tool for predicting ICU outcomes, outperforming traditional scoring systems. It supports improved decision-making and resource allocation. Further multicenter studies are necessary to validate its broader use in critical care practice.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Saxena S, Gupta P, Panwar P, Jain A, Jain SS, Jain R, <i>et al</i>. Impact of the Clinical Frailty Score on Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients in a Tertiary Care ICU. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(4):320-326.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"320-326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12045041/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高龄是已知的易感性标志,但虚弱是危重患者预后不良的独立预测因子。临床虚弱评分(CFS)有助于快速评估,帮助预测,改善护理和资源分配,特别是在资源有限的重症监护病房(icu)。材料和方法:一项前瞻性观察队列研究于2023年4月至9月在一家三级护理ICU进行。该研究纳入了166例年龄≥50岁且ICU住院时间超过48小时的患者,排除了那些有护理升级禁忌症的患者。收集了人口统计学、临床参数和评分系统的数据,包括急性生理和慢性健康评估II (APACHE-II)、顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)、Charlson合并症指数(CCI)和CFS。采用受试者工作曲线(ROC)曲线、截止值和逻辑回归进行预测分析。结果:患者中位年龄为65岁,APACHE-II评分为18分,CFS为4分。住院死亡率为46.4%。CFS在预测住院死亡率[受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC-ROC) 0.73]和净负面预后(AUC ROC 0.75)方面优于其他评分系统。39.75%的患者存在虚弱(CFS≥6),CFS每增加一个单位,死亡几率增加41.8%,净不良结局几率增加50.7%。CFS最佳临界值分别为4(80%敏感性)和6(80%特异性)。结论:CFS是一种实用可靠的预测ICU预后的工具,优于传统的评分系统。它支持改进决策和资源分配。需要进一步的多中心研究来验证其在重症监护实践中的广泛应用。如何引用本文:Saxena S, Gupta P, Panwar P, Jain A, Jain SS, Jain R等。临床虚弱评分对三级ICU重症患者预后的影响中华检验医学杂志,2015;29(4):320-326。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of the Clinical Frailty Score on Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients in a Tertiary Care ICU.

Background: Advanced age is a known marker of vulnerability, but frailty is an independent predictor of poor outcomes in critically ill patients. The clinical frailty score (CFS) facilitates rapid assessment, aiding prognostication, care improvement, and resource allocation, particularly in resource-limited intensive care units (ICUs).

Materials and methods: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from April to September 2023 at a tertiary care ICU. The study included 166 patients aged ≥50 years with ICU stays longer than 48 hours, excluding those with contraindications for care escalation. Data were collected on demographics, Clinical parameters, and scoring systems including acute physiological and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II), sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and CFS. Predictive analyses were performed using receiver operating curve (ROC) curves, cut-offs, and logistic regression.

Results: The median age of patients was 65 years, with an APACHE-II score of 18 and a CFS of 4. In-hospital mortality was 46.4%. The CFS outperformed other scoring systems in predicting both in-hospital mortality [Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) 0.73] and net negative outcomes (AUC ROC 0.75). Frailty (CFS ≥6) was present in 39.75% of patients, with each unit increase in CFS associated with a 41.8% higher odds of mortality and a 50.7% higher odds of net negative outcomes. The optimal CFS cut-offs were 4 for 80% sensitivity and 6 for 80% specificity.

Conclusion: The CFS is a practical and reliable tool for predicting ICU outcomes, outperforming traditional scoring systems. It supports improved decision-making and resource allocation. Further multicenter studies are necessary to validate its broader use in critical care practice.

How to cite this article: Saxena S, Gupta P, Panwar P, Jain A, Jain SS, Jain R, et al. Impact of the Clinical Frailty Score on Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients in a Tertiary Care ICU. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(4):320-326.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine (ISSN 0972-5229) is specialty periodical published under the auspices of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. Journal encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the fields of critical and emergency medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信