Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Bone Joint J. 2022 Aug;104-B(8):980-986. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B8.BJJ-2020-1835.R2.
We assessed the value of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in the prediction of adverse outcome after hip fracture.
Of 1,577 consecutive patients aged > 65 years with a fragility hip fracture admitted to one institution, for whom there were complete data, 1,255 (72%) were studied. Clinicians assigned CFS scores on admission. Audit personnel routinely prospectively completed the Standardised Audit of Hip Fracture in Europe form, including the following outcomes: 30-day survival; in-hospital complications; length of acute hospital stay; and new institutionalization. The relationship between the CFS scores and outcomes was examined graphically and the visual interpretations were tested statistically. The predictive values of the CFS and Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) to predict 30-day mortality were compared using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis.
Significant non-linear associations between CFS and outcomes were observed. Risk of death within 30 days rose linearly for CFS 1 to 5, but plateaued for CFS > 5. The incidence of complications and length of stay rose linearly for CFS 1 to 4, but plateaued for CFS > 4. In contrast, the risk of new institutionalization rose linearly for CFS 1 to 8. The AUCs for 30-day mortality for the CFS and NHFS were very similar: CFS AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.69) and NHFS AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.69).
Use of the CFS may provide useful information on outcomes for fitter patients presenting with hip fracture, but completion of the CFS by the admitting orthopaedic team does not appear successful in distinguishing between higher CFS categories, which define patients with frailty. This makes a strong case for the role of the orthogeriatrician in the early assessment of these patients. Further work is needed to understand why patients assessed as being of mild, moderate, and severe frailty do not result in different outcomes. Cite this article: 2022;104-B(8):980-986.
我们评估临床虚弱量表(CFS)在预测髋部骨折后不良结局中的价值。
在一家机构收治的 1577 名年龄>65 岁、患有脆弱性髋部骨折的连续患者中,有 1255 名(72%)患者的数据完整。入院时,临床医生会分配 CFS 评分。审核人员会定期前瞻性地完成欧洲标准化髋部骨折审核表,包括以下结果:30 天生存率;院内并发症;急性住院时间;以及新的机构化。通过图形检查 CFS 评分与结果之间的关系,并通过视觉解释进行统计学检验。使用接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)分析比较 CFS 和诺丁汉髋部骨折评分(NHFS)预测 30 天死亡率的预测值。
观察到 CFS 与结局之间存在显著的非线性关联。CFS 1 至 5 分的患者在 30 天内死亡的风险呈线性上升,但 CFS>5 分的患者死亡风险趋于平稳。CFS 1 至 4 分的患者并发症发生率和住院时间呈线性上升,但 CFS>4 分的患者并发症发生率和住院时间趋于平稳。相比之下,CFS 1 至 8 分的患者新机构化风险呈线性上升。CFS 和 NHFS 预测 30 天死亡率的 AUC 非常相似:CFS AUC 0.63(95%CI 0.57 至 0.69)和 NHFS AUC 0.63(95%CI 0.57 至 0.69)。
使用 CFS 可能为患有髋部骨折的较健康患者的结局提供有用的信息,但由入院骨科团队完成 CFS 并不能成功区分更高的 CFS 类别,这些类别定义了虚弱患者。这强烈表明在这些患者的早期评估中,老年骨科医生的作用至关重要。需要进一步研究为什么评估为轻度、中度和重度虚弱的患者没有导致不同的结局。
2022;104-B(8):980-986。