Department of Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital BeiHu Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Nephrology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Nephrology (Carlton). 2020 Jan;25(1):73-81. doi: 10.1111/nep.13583. Epub 2019 May 6.
Laboratory deficit-based frailty index (LFI) exhibited outcome-prediction ability in the elderly, but not in those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We hypothesized that LFI results might have outcome correlation and correlate closely with other instruments in ESRD patients.
We prospectively enroled ESRD patients between 2014 and 2015 and administered self-report frailty instruments (Strawbridge questionnaire, Edmonton frail scale (EFS), Groningen frailty indicator (GFI), Tilburg frailty indicator, G8 questionnaire and FRAIL scale), and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) scale, with two types of LFI calculated. They were followed up until June 30, 2017. Correlations between the results of six instruments, CHS scale, and those of LFI were identified, followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and logistic regression analyses to compare those with high and low LFI.
The frailty prevalence was 33.3% (CHS), 78.8% Strawbridge questionnaire, 45.5% (EFS), 57.6% (GFI), 27.3% (Tilburg frailty indicator), 84.8% (G8) and 18.2% (FRAIL) among ESRD participants. LFI-1 results were significantly correlated with those of LFI-2 (P < 0.01), EFS (P = 0.04) and GFI (P < 0.01), while LFI-2 results were not. Those with CHS or GFI-identified frailty had significantly lower 1,25-(OH) -D levels than those without. After 32.3 ± 5.4 months, patients with high LFI-1 scores, but not LFI-2, had a significantly higher mortality than those with lower scores. GFI and EFS scores were also independently associated with LFI-1, while CHS scores exhibited borderline association only.
Among a group of predominantly older ESRD patients, LFI differentiates patients with good and poor outcomes, supporting its applicability in these patients.
基于实验室的衰弱指数(LFI)在老年人中具有预测结局的能力,但在终末期肾病(ESRD)患者中则不然。我们假设 LFI 结果可能与结局相关,并与 ESRD 患者的其他工具密切相关。
我们前瞻性纳入了 2014 年至 2015 年间的 ESRD 患者,并进行了自我报告的衰弱工具(Strawbridge 问卷、埃德蒙顿衰弱量表(EFS)、格罗宁根衰弱指标(GFI)、蒂尔堡衰弱指标、G8 问卷和 FRAIL 量表)和心血管健康研究(CHS)量表的评估,同时计算了两种类型的 LFI。随访至 2017 年 6 月 30 日。鉴定了六种工具、CHS 量表与 LFI 结果之间的相关性,随后进行 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析和 logistic 回归分析,比较高和低 LFI 患者的结果。
在 ESRD 患者中,衰弱的患病率分别为:CHS(33.3%)、Strawbridge 问卷(78.8%)、EFS(45.5%)、GFI(57.6%)、Tilburg 衰弱指标(27.3%)、G8(84.8%)和 FRAIL(18.2%)。LFI-1 结果与 LFI-2(P<0.01)、EFS(P=0.04)和 GFI(P<0.01)显著相关,而 LFI-2 结果则不相关。在 CHS 或 GFI 识别为衰弱的患者中,1,25-(OH)-D 水平显著低于无衰弱的患者。随访 32.3±5.4 个月后,LFI-1 评分较高的患者,而不是 LFI-2 评分较高的患者,死亡率显著高于评分较低的患者。GFI 和 EFS 评分也与 LFI-1 独立相关,而 CHS 评分仅显示边缘相关。
在一组主要为老年 ESRD 患者中,LFI 可区分预后良好和不良的患者,支持其在这些患者中的适用性。