Suppr超能文献

住院患者衰弱的流行率及其出院后结局:不同衰弱定义的影响。

Prevalence and Postdischarge Outcomes Associated with Frailty in Medical Inpatients: Impact of Different Frailty Definitions.

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Alberta SPOR Support Unit Data Platform, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

J Hosp Med. 2019 Jul 1;14(7):407-410. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3174. Epub 2019 Mar 20.

Abstract

We compared prevalence estimates and prognostication if frailty were defined using the face-to-face Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) or the administrative-data-derived Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). We evaluated 489 adults from a prospective cohort study of medical patients being discharged back to the community; 276 (56%) were deemed frail (214 [44%] on the HFRS and 161 [33%] on the CFS), but only 99 (20%) met both frailty definitions (kappa 0.24, 95% CI 0.16-0.33). Patients classified as frail on the CFS exhibited significantly higher 30-day readmission/death rates, 19% versus 10% for those not frail (aOR [adjusted odds ratio] 2.53, 95% CI 1.40-4.57) and 21% versus 6% for those aged >65 years (aOR 4.31, 95% CI 1.80-10.31). Patients with HFRS-defined frailty exhibited higher 30-day readmission/death rates that were not statistically significant (16% vs 11%, aOR 1.62 [95% CI 0.95-2.75] in all adults and 14% vs 11%, aOR 1.24 [95% CI 0.58-2.83] in those aged >65 years).

摘要

我们比较了使用面对面临床虚弱量表(CFS)或基于行政数据的医院虚弱风险评分(HFRS)定义虚弱时的患病率估计和预后。我们评估了来自医疗患者出院后返回社区的前瞻性队列研究中的 489 名成年人;276 人(56%)被认为虚弱(HFRS 为 214 人[44%],CFS 为 161 人[33%]),但只有 99 人(20%)符合两种虚弱定义(kappa 0.24,95%CI 0.16-0.33)。在 CFS 上被归类为虚弱的患者 30 天内再入院/死亡率显著更高,分别为 19%和 10%(无虚弱者的调整后优势比[aOR]为 2.53,95%CI 1.40-4.57),年龄>65 岁者分别为 21%和 6%(aOR 为 4.31,95%CI 1.80-10.31)。HFRS 定义的虚弱患者的 30 天再入院/死亡率较高,但无统计学意义(16%对 11%,所有成年人的调整后优势比[aOR]为 1.62[95%CI 0.95-2.75],年龄>65 岁者为 14%对 11%,aOR 为 1.24[95%CI 0.58-2.83])。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验