Department of Medicine and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; The Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Can J Cardiol. 2013 Dec;29(12):1610-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2013.08.016. Epub 2013 Oct 30.
Frailty is superior to chronological age as a predictor of outcome. The Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) is a simple valid measure of frailty, covering multiple important domains, with scores ranging from 0 (not frail) to 17 (very frail). The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the EFS in a group of elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
The EFS was administered to 183 consecutive patients with ACS aged ≥ 65 years admitted to a single centre in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Scores ranged from 0-13. Patients with higher EFS scores were older, with more comorbidities, longer lengths of stay (EFS 0-3: mean, 7.0 days; EFS 4-6: mean, 9.7 days; and EFS ≥ 7: mean, 12.7 days; P = 0.03), and decreased procedure use. Crude mortality rates at 1 year were 1.6% for EFS 0-3, 7.7% for EFS 4-6, and 12.7% for EFS ≥ 7 (P = 0.05). After adjusting for baseline risk differences using a "burden of illness" score, the hazard ratio for mortality for EFS ≥ 7 compared with EFS 0-3 was 3.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-7.61; P = 0.002).
The EFS is associated with increased comorbidity, longer lengths of stay, and decreased procedure use. After adjustment for burden of illness, the highest frailty category is independently associated with mortality in elderly patients with ACS. Further work is needed to determine whether the use of a validated frailty instrument would better delineate medical decision making in this important, often disadvantaged population.
衰弱是预测结局的比实际年龄更好的指标。埃德蒙顿衰弱量表(EFS)是一种简单有效的衰弱测量方法,涵盖了多个重要领域,分数范围为 0(不衰弱)至 17(非常衰弱)。本研究的目的是评估埃德蒙顿衰弱量表在急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)老年患者中的应用。
在加拿大阿尔伯塔省埃德蒙顿的一家中心,对 183 名年龄≥65 岁的连续 ACS 患者进行了 EFS 评估。
分数范围为 0-13。EFS 评分较高的患者年龄较大,合并症较多,住院时间较长(EFS 0-3:平均 7.0 天;EFS 4-6:平均 9.7 天;EFS ≥ 7:平均 12.7 天;P=0.03),且手术使用率降低。1 年时的粗死亡率分别为 EFS 0-3 组 1.6%、EFS 4-6 组 7.7%、EFS ≥ 7 组 12.7%(P=0.05)。在校正了使用“疾病负担”评分的基线风险差异后,EFS ≥ 7 组与 EFS 0-3 组的死亡风险比为 3.49(95%置信区间[CI],1.08-7.61;P=0.002)。
EFS 与合并症增多、住院时间延长和手术使用率降低相关。在校正疾病负担后,最高衰弱类别与 ACS 老年患者的死亡率独立相关。需要进一步研究确定在这一重要的、往往处于不利地位的人群中使用经过验证的衰弱工具是否能更好地明确医疗决策。