Nowak Wojciech, Kowalik Ilona, Kuzin Małgorzata, Krauze Agnieszka, Mierzyńska Anna, Sadowy Ewa, Marcinkiewicz Kamil, Stępińska Janina
Department of Intensive Cardiac Therapy, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Clinical Research Support Center, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
J Geriatr Cardiol. 2022 May 28;19(5):343-353. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.05.010.
Frailty is associated with adverse events in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to compare the prognostic value of four frailty scales in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized with ACS in a cardiac care unit (CCU).
Patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were included. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty scale (reference standard), the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), the FRAIL scale, and the Clinical frailty scale (CFS). The primary end point was all-cause mortality and the secondary end point was unscheduled rehospitalization.
One hundred and seventy four patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were recruited. The median follow-up was 637.5 days. Frailty was identified in 41.4%, 40.2%, 39.1% and 36.3% patients by the Fried frailty scale, EFS, FRAIL scale and CFS, respectively. The agreement coefficients were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.79 for the FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS, respectively. In the Cox regression model, frailty was associated with all-cause mortality regardless of the scale used (univariate: hazard ratio [HR] 95% CI = 10.5, 2.4-46.8 Fried frailty scale; 12.0, 2.7-53.4 FRAIL scale; 7.1, 2.0-25.2 EFS; 8.3, 2.4-29.6 CFS. Multivariate: HR = 5.1, 1.1-23.8 Fried frailty scale; 5.7, 1.2-26.8 FRAIL scale; 3.7, 1.0-14.0 EFS; 4.2, 1.1-15.9 CFS). The FRAIL scale had the highest HR. In the univariate analysis, frailty was associated with unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 3.2, 1.7-6.0 Fried frailty scale; 3.4, 1.8-6.3 FRAIL scale; 3.5, 1.8-6.6 EFS; 3.1, 1.7-5.8 CFS). In the multivariate analysis, only the EFS independently predicted unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 2.2, 1.1-4.63).
Frailty assessed by the Fried frailty scale, FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS is associated with all-cause mortality and unscheduled rehospitalization in elderly patients hospitalized in a CCU with ACS. The adjusted HR of the FRAIL scale for all-cause mortality was the highest among the scales compared, whereas the EFS was an independent predictor of unscheduled rehospitalization. These data should be taken into consideration when choosing a frailty assessment tool.
衰弱与老年急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者的不良事件相关。我们的目的是比较四种衰弱量表在心脏监护病房(CCU)中因ACS住院的≥65岁患者中的预后价值。
纳入≥65岁的ACS患者。使用弗里德衰弱量表(参考标准)、埃德蒙顿衰弱量表(EFS)、FRAIL量表和临床衰弱量表(CFS)评估衰弱情况。主要终点是全因死亡率,次要终点是计划外再住院。
招募了174例≥65岁的ACS患者。中位随访时间为637.5天。弗里德衰弱量表、EFS、FRAIL量表和CFS分别在41.4%、40.2%、39.1%和36.3%的患者中识别出衰弱。FRAIL量表、EFS和CFS的一致性系数分别为0.88、0.86和0.79。在Cox回归模型中,无论使用哪种量表,衰弱均与全因死亡率相关(单变量:风险比[HR]95%CI=10.5,2.4 - 46.8弗里德衰弱量表;12.0,2.7 - 53.4 FRAIL量表;7.1,2.0 - 25.2 EFS;8.3,2.4 - 29.6 CFS。多变量:HR = 5.1,1.1 - 23.8弗里德衰弱量表;5.7,1.2 - 26.8 FRAIL量表;3.7,1.0 - 14.0 EFS;4.2,1.1 - 15.9 CFS)。FRAIL量表的HR最高。在单变量分析中,衰弱与计划外再住院相关(HR = 3.2,1.7 - 6.0弗里德衰弱量表;3.4,1.8 - 6.3 FRAIL量表;3.5,1.8 - 6.6 EFS;3.1,1.7 - 5.8 CFS)。在多变量分析中,只有EFS能独立预测计划外再住院(HR = 2.2,1.1 - 4.63)。
通过弗里德衰弱量表、FRAIL量表、EFS和CFS评估的衰弱与在CCU因ACS住院的老年患者的全因死亡率和计划外再住院相关。在比较的量表中,FRAIL量表对全因死亡率的调整后HR最高,而EFS是计划外再住院的独立预测因素。在选择衰弱评估工具时应考虑这些数据。