Dianet Dialysis Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Departments of Internal Medicine and.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Sep 7;12(9):1480-1488. doi: 10.2215/CJN.11801116. Epub 2017 Jul 17.
A geriatric assessment is an appropriate method for identifying frail elderly patients. In CKD, it may contribute to optimize personalized care. However, a geriatric assessment is time consuming. The purpose of our study was to compare easy to apply frailty screening tools with the geriatric assessment in patients eligible for dialysis.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A total of 123 patients on incident dialysis ≥65 years old were included <3 weeks before to ≤2 weeks after dialysis initiation, and all underwent a geriatric assessment. Patients with impairment in two or more geriatric domains on the geriatric assessment were considered frail. The diagnostic abilities of six frailty screening tools were compared with the geriatric assessment: the Fried Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Geriatric8, the Identification of Seniors at Risk, the Hospital Safety Program, and the clinical judgment of the nephrologist. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.
In total, 75% of patients were frail according to the geriatric assessment. Sensitivity of frailty screening tools ranged from 48% (Fried Frailty Index) to 88% (Geriatric8). The discriminating features of the clinical judgment were comparable with the other screening tools. The Identification of Seniors at Risk screening tool had the best discriminating abilities, with a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value of 91%, and a negative predictive value of 52%. The negative predictive value was poor for all tools, which means that almost one half of the patients screened as fit (nonfrail) had two or more geriatric impairments on the geriatric assessment.
All frailty screening tools are able to detect geriatric impairment in elderly patients eligible for dialysis. However, all applied screening tools, including the judgment of the nephrologist, lack the discriminating abilities to adequately rule out frailty compared with a geriatric assessment.
老年评估是识别虚弱老年患者的合适方法。在 CKD 中,它可能有助于优化个性化护理。然而,老年评估耗时。我们的研究目的是比较易于应用的虚弱筛查工具与适合透析患者的老年评估。
设计、设置、参与者和测量:共纳入 123 名年龄≥65 岁的新透析患者,在透析开始前<3 周至开始后≤2 周,所有患者均接受老年评估。在老年评估中,有两个或更多老年领域受损的患者被认为是虚弱的。比较了六种虚弱筛查工具与老年评估的诊断能力:Fried 虚弱指数、格罗宁根虚弱指标、Geriatric8、老年人风险识别、医院安全计划和肾病医生的临床判断。结局指标为敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。
根据老年评估,共有 75%的患者为虚弱。虚弱筛查工具的敏感性范围为 48%(Fried 虚弱指数)至 88%(Geriatric8)。临床判断的鉴别特征与其他筛查工具相当。老年人风险识别筛查工具具有最佳的鉴别能力,敏感性为 74%,特异性为 80%,阳性预测值为 91%,阴性预测值为 52%。所有工具的阴性预测值都较差,这意味着几乎一半被筛查为健康(非虚弱)的患者在老年评估中有两个或更多的老年损伤。
所有虚弱筛查工具都能够检测到适合透析的老年患者的老年损伤。然而,与老年评估相比,所有应用的筛查工具,包括肾病医生的判断,都缺乏足够的鉴别能力来排除虚弱。