Suppr超能文献

养老院中的衰弱——一项比较FRAIL-NH和临床衰弱量表的前瞻性研究

Frailty in Nursing Homes-A Prospective Study Comparing the FRAIL-NH and the Clinical Frailty Scale.

作者信息

Grosshauser Franz J, Schoene Daniel, Kiesswetter Eva, Sieber Cornel C, Volkert Dorothee

机构信息

Institute for Biomedicine of Aging, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.

Institute of Medical Physics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany; Institute of Exercise and Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022 Oct;23(10):1717.e1-1717.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.07.028. Epub 2022 Sep 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Frailty is common in nursing home (NH) residents, but its prevalence in German institutions is unknown. Valid and easy-to-use screening tools are needed to identify frail residents. We used the FRAIL-NH scale and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to (1) obtain the prevalence of frailty, (2) investigate the agreement between both instruments, and (3) evaluate their predictive validity for adverse health events in German NH residents.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

German NH residents (n = 246, age 84 ± 8 years, 67% female).

METHODS

Frailty status was categorized according to FRAIL-NH (nonfrail, frail, most frail) and CFS (not frail, mild to moderately frail, severely frail). Agreement between instruments was examined by Spearman correlation, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CI, and sensitivity and specificity using the "most frail" category of FRAIL-NH as reference standard. Adverse health events (death, hospital admissions, falls) were recorded for 12 months, and multivariate cox and logistic regression models calculated.

RESULTS

According to FRAIL-NH, 71.1% were most frail, 26.4% frail, and 2.5% nonfrail. According to CFS, 66.3% were severely frail, 26.8% mild to moderately frail, and 6.9% not frail. Both scales correlated significantly (r = 0.78; R = 60%). The AUC was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). Using a CFS cutoff of 7 points, sensitivity was 0.90 and specificity 0.92. The frailest groups according to both instruments had an increased risk of death [FRAIL-NH hazard ratio (HR) 2.19, 95% CI 1.21-3.99; CFS HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.43-4.58] and hospital admission [FRAIL-NH odds ratio (OR) 1.95, 95% CI 1.06-3.58; CFS OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.20] compared to less frail residents. The FRAIL-NH predicted recurrent faller status (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23-5.39).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Frailty is highly prevalent in German NH residents. Both instruments show good agreement despite different approaches and are able to predict adverse health outcomes. Based on our findings and because of its simple administration, CFS may be an alternative to FRAIL-NH for assessing frailty in NHs.

摘要

目的

衰弱在养老院居民中很常见,但在德国机构中的患病率尚不清楚。需要有效且易于使用的筛查工具来识别衰弱居民。我们使用衰弱-养老院(FRAIL-NH)量表和临床衰弱量表(CFS)来(1)获取衰弱的患病率,(2)调查两种工具之间的一致性,以及(3)评估它们对德国养老院居民不良健康事件的预测效度。

设计

前瞻性队列研究。

设置和参与者

德国养老院居民(n = 246,年龄84±8岁,67%为女性)。

方法

根据FRAIL-NH(非衰弱、衰弱、最衰弱)和CFS(不衰弱、轻度至中度衰弱、重度衰弱)对衰弱状态进行分类。通过Spearman相关性、受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)及其95%置信区间,以及以FRAIL-NH的“最衰弱”类别作为参考标准的敏感性和特异性来检验工具之间的一致性。记录12个月内的不良健康事件(死亡、住院、跌倒),并计算多变量Cox和逻辑回归模型。

结果

根据FRAIL-NH,71.1%为最衰弱,26.4%为衰弱,2.5%为非衰弱。根据CFS,66.3%为重度衰弱,26.8%为轻度至中度衰弱,6.9%为不衰弱。两种量表显著相关(r = 0.78;一致性为60%)。AUC为0.92(95%置信区间0.88 - 0.96)。使用CFS临界值为7分时,敏感性为0.90,特异性为0.92。与衰弱程度较低的居民相比,两种工具确定的最衰弱组死亡风险增加[FRAIL-NH风险比(HR)2.19,95%置信区间1.21 - 3.99;CFS HR 2.56,95%置信区间1.43 - 4.58],住院风险增加[FRAIL-NH比值比(OR)1.95,95%置信区间1.06 - 3.58;CFS OR 1.79,95%置信区间1.01 - 3.20]。FRAIL-NH可预测反复跌倒状态(OR 2.57,95%置信区间1.23 - 5.39)。

结论和启示

衰弱在德国养老院居民中高度流行。尽管方法不同,两种工具显示出良好的一致性,并且能够预测不良健康结局。基于我们的研究结果,由于其操作简单,CFS可能是FRAIL-NH在养老院评估衰弱的替代工具。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验