比较透析依赖患者的弗里德虚弱表型与退伍军人事务部虚弱指数。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Anum Hamiduzzaman, Ruoxue Wu, Victoria Murray, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Elani Streja, John Sy
{"title":"比较透析依赖患者的弗里德虚弱表型与退伍军人事务部虚弱指数。","authors":"Anum Hamiduzzaman,&nbsp;Ruoxue Wu,&nbsp;Victoria Murray,&nbsp;Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh,&nbsp;Elani Streja,&nbsp;John Sy","doi":"10.1111/hdi.13101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Frailty in dialysis patients is a modifiable disease state which can increase mortality if left untreated but remains underdiagnosed as frailty evaluations can be arduous or time consuming. We evaluate the agreement between a clinical frailty construct (Fried frailty phenotype, FFP) against and an electronic health record-based Veterans Affairs Frailty Index (VAFI) and their association with mortality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A <b>r</b>etrospective cohort analysis of 764 participants from the ACTIVE/ADIPOSE study was performed. Frailty as measured by VAFI and FFP was obtained and Kappa statistic estimating concordance between the two scores were calculated. Differences in mortality risk were analyzed according to presence or absence of frailty.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>When assessing agreement between the VAFI and FFP, the kappa statistic was 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–0.16) suggesting a low level of agreement. Frailty was independently associated with higher mortality risk (hazards ratio [HR] 1.40–1.42 in fully adjusted models depending upon frailty construct). Discordantly frail patients by construct had a higher risk of mortality though this was not statistically significant after adjustment. However, concordantly frail patients had much higher mortality risk compared to concordantly nonfrail (adjusted HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.44–3.01).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Poor agreement between constructs is likely reflective of the multifactorial definition of frailty. While further longitudinal studies are needed to determine if the VAFI would be beneficial in the reassessment of frailty, it may be beneficial as a cue for further frailty testing (e.g., with FFP) with the combination of multiple frail constructs providing improved prognostic information.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12815,"journal":{"name":"Hemodialysis International","volume":"27 4","pages":"444-453"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hdi.13101","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Fried frailty phenotype versus the Veterans Affairs frailty index among dialysis dependent patients\",\"authors\":\"Anum Hamiduzzaman,&nbsp;Ruoxue Wu,&nbsp;Victoria Murray,&nbsp;Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh,&nbsp;Elani Streja,&nbsp;John Sy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hdi.13101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Frailty in dialysis patients is a modifiable disease state which can increase mortality if left untreated but remains underdiagnosed as frailty evaluations can be arduous or time consuming. We evaluate the agreement between a clinical frailty construct (Fried frailty phenotype, FFP) against and an electronic health record-based Veterans Affairs Frailty Index (VAFI) and their association with mortality.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A <b>r</b>etrospective cohort analysis of 764 participants from the ACTIVE/ADIPOSE study was performed. Frailty as measured by VAFI and FFP was obtained and Kappa statistic estimating concordance between the two scores were calculated. Differences in mortality risk were analyzed according to presence or absence of frailty.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>When assessing agreement between the VAFI and FFP, the kappa statistic was 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–0.16) suggesting a low level of agreement. Frailty was independently associated with higher mortality risk (hazards ratio [HR] 1.40–1.42 in fully adjusted models depending upon frailty construct). Discordantly frail patients by construct had a higher risk of mortality though this was not statistically significant after adjustment. However, concordantly frail patients had much higher mortality risk compared to concordantly nonfrail (adjusted HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.44–3.01).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Poor agreement between constructs is likely reflective of the multifactorial definition of frailty. While further longitudinal studies are needed to determine if the VAFI would be beneficial in the reassessment of frailty, it may be beneficial as a cue for further frailty testing (e.g., with FFP) with the combination of multiple frail constructs providing improved prognostic information.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hemodialysis International\",\"volume\":\"27 4\",\"pages\":\"444-453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hdi.13101\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hemodialysis International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hdi.13101\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hemodialysis International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hdi.13101","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:透析患者的虚弱是一种可改变的疾病状态,如果不进行治疗,可能会增加死亡率,但由于虚弱评估可能很困难或很耗时,因此诊断仍然不足。我们评估了临床虚弱构建体(Fried虚弱表型,FFP)与基于电子健康记录的退伍军人事务虚弱指数(VAFI)之间的一致性及其与死亡率的关系。方法:对来自ACTIVE/ADIPOSE研究的764名参与者进行回顾性队列分析。获得通过VAFI和FFP测量的脆弱性,并计算Kappa统计估计两个得分之间的一致性。根据虚弱与否分析死亡风险的差异。结果:当评估VAFI和FFP之间的一致性时,kappa统计量为0.09(95%置信区间[CI]0.02-0.16),表明一致性水平较低。虚弱与较高的死亡率风险独立相关(根据虚弱结构,完全调整模型中的危险比[HR]1.40-1.42)。结构不协调虚弱的患者有更高的死亡风险,尽管调整后这在统计学上并不显著。然而,与一致性非疲劳患者相比,一致性虚弱患者的死亡率要高得多(调整后的HR 2.08,95%CI 1.44-3.01)。讨论:结构之间的不一致可能反映了虚弱的多因素定义。虽然需要进一步的纵向研究来确定VAFI是否有利于虚弱的重新评估,但它可能有助于进一步的虚弱测试(例如,使用FFP),多种虚弱结构的组合提供了改善的预后信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparing the Fried frailty phenotype versus the Veterans Affairs frailty index among dialysis dependent patients

Comparing the Fried frailty phenotype versus the Veterans Affairs frailty index among dialysis dependent patients

Introduction

Frailty in dialysis patients is a modifiable disease state which can increase mortality if left untreated but remains underdiagnosed as frailty evaluations can be arduous or time consuming. We evaluate the agreement between a clinical frailty construct (Fried frailty phenotype, FFP) against and an electronic health record-based Veterans Affairs Frailty Index (VAFI) and their association with mortality.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis of 764 participants from the ACTIVE/ADIPOSE study was performed. Frailty as measured by VAFI and FFP was obtained and Kappa statistic estimating concordance between the two scores were calculated. Differences in mortality risk were analyzed according to presence or absence of frailty.

Findings

When assessing agreement between the VAFI and FFP, the kappa statistic was 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–0.16) suggesting a low level of agreement. Frailty was independently associated with higher mortality risk (hazards ratio [HR] 1.40–1.42 in fully adjusted models depending upon frailty construct). Discordantly frail patients by construct had a higher risk of mortality though this was not statistically significant after adjustment. However, concordantly frail patients had much higher mortality risk compared to concordantly nonfrail (adjusted HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.44–3.01).

Discussion

Poor agreement between constructs is likely reflective of the multifactorial definition of frailty. While further longitudinal studies are needed to determine if the VAFI would be beneficial in the reassessment of frailty, it may be beneficial as a cue for further frailty testing (e.g., with FFP) with the combination of multiple frail constructs providing improved prognostic information.

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
Hemodialysis International
Hemodialysis International UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Hemodialysis International was originally an annual publication containing the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Hemodialysis held in conjunction with the Annual Dialysis Conference. Since 2003, Hemodialysis International is published quarterly and contains original papers on clinical and experimental topics related to dialysis in addition to the Annual Dialysis Conference supplement. This journal is a must-have for nephrologists, nurses, and technicians worldwide. Quarterly issues of Hemodialysis International are included with your membership to the International Society for Hemodialysis. The journal contains original articles, review articles, and commentary to keep readers completely updated in the field of hemodialysis. Edited by international and multidisciplinary experts, Hemodialysis International disseminates critical information in the field.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信