Suppr超能文献

比较衰弱、共病和残疾对死亡率的预测准确性:对老年病房住院患者进行的1年随访

Comparing the predictive accuracy of frailty, comorbidity, and disability for mortality: a 1-year follow-up in patients hospitalized in geriatric wards.

作者信息

Ritt Martin, Ritt Julia Isabel, Sieber Cornel Christian, Gaßmann Karl-Günter

机构信息

Institute for Biomedicine of Ageing (IBA), Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Nürnberg; Department of Internal Medicine III (Medicine of Ageing), Geriatrics Centre Erlangen, Hospital of the Congregation of St Francis Sisters of Vierzehnheiligen, Erlangen.

Department of Internal Medicine III (Medicine of Ageing), Geriatrics Centre Erlangen, Hospital of the Congregation of St Francis Sisters of Vierzehnheiligen, Erlangen.

出版信息

Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Feb 8;12:293-304. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S124342. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating and comparing the power of frailty, comorbidity, and disability instruments, together and in parallel, for predicting mortality are limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the measures of frailty, comorbidity, and disability in predicting 1-year mortality in geriatric inpatients.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PATIENTS AND SETTING

A total of 307 inpatients aged ≥65 years in geriatric wards of a general hospital participated in the study.

MEASUREMENTS

The patients were evaluated in relation to different frailty, comorbidity, and disability instruments during their hospital stays. These included three frailty (the seven-category Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS-7], a 41-item frailty index [FI], and the FRAIL scale), two comorbidity (the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics [CIRS-G] and the comorbidity domain of the FI [Comorbidity-D-FI]), and two disability instruments (disability in basic activities of daily living [ADL-Katz] and the instrumental and basic activities of daily living domains of the FI [IADL/ADL-D-FI]). The patients were followed-up over 1 year.

RESULTS

Using FI, CIRS-G, Comorbidity-D-FI, and ADL-Katz, this study identified a patient group with a high (≥50%) 1-year mortality rate in all of the patients and the two patient subgroups (ie, patients aged 65-82 years and ≥83 years). The CFS-7, FI, FRAIL scale, CIRS-G, Comorbidity-D-FI, and IADL/ADL-D-FI (analyzed as full scales) revealed useful discriminative accuracy for 1-year mortality (ie, an area under the curve >0.7) in all the patients and the two patient subgroups (all <0.001). Thereby, CFS-7 (in all patients and the two patient subgroups) and FI (in the subgroup of patients aged ≥83 years) showed greater discriminative accuracy for 1-year mortality compared to other instruments (all <0.05).

CONCLUSION

All the different instruments emerged as suitable tools for risk stratification in geriatric inpatients. Among them, CFS-7, and in those patients aged ≥83 years, also the FI, might most accurately predict 1-year mortality in the aforementioned group of individuals.

摘要

背景

评估和比较衰弱、共病及残疾评估工具在预测死亡率方面的作用,将这些工具综合起来或平行比较的研究有限。

目的

本研究旨在评估和比较衰弱、共病及残疾评估工具在预测老年住院患者1年死亡率方面的作用。

设计

前瞻性队列研究。

患者与研究地点

一家综合医院老年病房的307名年龄≥65岁的住院患者参与了本研究。

测量指标

在患者住院期间,使用不同的衰弱、共病及残疾评估工具对其进行评估。这些工具包括三种衰弱评估工具(七分类临床衰弱量表 [CFS-7]、41项衰弱指数 [FI] 和FRAIL量表)、两种共病评估工具(老年累积疾病评定量表 [CIRS-G] 和FI的共病领域 [共病-D-FI])以及两种残疾评估工具(日常生活基本活动能力残疾 [ADL-Katz] 和FI的工具性日常生活活动及基本日常生活活动领域 [IADL/ADL-D-FI])。对患者进行为期1年的随访。

结果

使用FI、CIRS-G、共病-D-FI和ADL-Katz,本研究在所有患者以及两个患者亚组(即65 - 82岁患者和≥83岁患者)中识别出1年死亡率高(≥50%)的患者群体。CFS-7、FI、FRAIL量表、CIRS-G、共病-D-FI和IADL/ADL-D-FI(作为完整量表分析)在所有患者以及两个患者亚组中对1年死亡率显示出有效的判别准确性(即曲线下面积>0.7)(所有P<0.001)。因此,与其他工具相比,CFS-7(在所有患者和两个患者亚组中)和FI(在≥83岁患者亚组中)对1年死亡率显示出更高的判别准确性(所有P<0.05)。

结论

所有不同的评估工具都是老年住院患者风险分层的合适工具。其中,CFS-7以及在≥83岁的患者中,FI可能最准确地预测上述人群的1年死亡率。

相似文献

3
A comparison of four frailty models.四种虚弱模型的比较。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Apr;62(4):721-6. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12735. Epub 2014 Mar 17.
6
Disability and co-morbidity in relation to frailty: how much do they overlap?残疾与共病与衰弱的关系:它们有多少重叠?
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012 Sep-Oct;55(2):e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2012.03.001. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
10
Operationalizing a frailty index using routine blood and urine tests.利用常规血液和尿液检测实施衰弱指数
Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Jun 28;12:1029-1040. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S131987. eCollection 2017.

引用本文的文献

2
Anticoagulation Patterns Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation.社区居住的老年房颤患者的抗凝模式。
J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:21501319241243005. doi: 10.1177/21501319241243005.

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验