Wretborn Jens, Munir-Ehrlington Samia, Hörlin Erika, Wilhelms Daniel B
Department of Emergency Medicine and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Linköping University Linköping Sweden.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2024 Sep 9;5(5):e13244. doi: 10.1002/emp2.13244. eCollection 2024 Oct.
Frailty, assessed with clinical frailty scale (CFS), alone or in combination with aggregated vital signs, has been proposed as a measure to better predict mortality of older patients in the emergency department (ED), but the added predictive value to conventional triage is unclear.
This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study in three EDs in Sweden that evaluated the prognostic performance of the CFS alone or in combination with the national early warning score (NEWS), triage early warning score (TEWS) or the rapid emergency triage and treatment system (RETTS) triage tool using logistic regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality with 7- and 90-day mortality and admission as secondary outcomes reported as area under the receiver operating curve (AuROC) scores with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, predictive values, and likelihood ratios are reported for all models.
A total of 1832 patients were included with 17 (0.9%), 57 (3.1%), and 121 (6.6%) patients dying within 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. The admission rate was 43% (795/1832). Frailty (CFS > 4) was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio 6, 95% CI 3‒12, < 0.01). Prognostication of 30-day mortality was similar for all CFS-based models and better compared with models without CFS. The AuROC (95% CI) improved for RETTS from 0.67 (0.61‒0.74) to 0.83 (0.79‒0.88) ( = 0.008), for NEWS from 0.53 (0.45‒0.61) to 0.82 (0.77‒0.87) ( < 0.001), and for TEWS from 0.63 (0.55‒0.71) to 0.82 (0.77‒0.87) ( = 0.002).
Frailty measured with the CFS in combination with RETTS or structured vital sign assessment using NEWS or TEWS was better at prognosticating 30-day mortality compared to RETTS or early warnings score alone. Improved prognostication provides more realistic expectations and allows for informed discussions with patients and initiation of individualized treatment plans early in the ED process.
有人提出,使用临床衰弱量表(CFS)单独评估或与综合生命体征相结合来评估衰弱情况,可作为更好地预测急诊科老年患者死亡率的一种方法,但对于传统分诊的额外预测价值尚不清楚。
这是一项对瑞典三个急诊科的前瞻性观察性研究的二次分析,该研究使用逻辑回归评估了单独使用CFS或与国家早期预警评分(NEWS)、分诊早期预警评分(TEWS)或快速急诊分诊与治疗系统(RETTS)分诊工具相结合时的预后性能。主要结局是30天死亡率,次要结局是7天和90天死亡率及住院情况,以受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AuROC)评分及95%置信区间(CI)报告。报告了所有模型的敏感性、特异性、准确性、预测值和似然比。
共纳入1832例患者,分别有17例(0.9%)、57例(3.1%)和121例(6.6%)患者在7天、30天和90天内死亡。住院率为43%(795/1832)。衰弱(CFS>4)与30天死亡率显著相关(优势比6,95%CI 3 - 12,P<0.01)。所有基于CFS的模型对30天死亡率的预测相似,且比不使用CFS的模型更好。RETTS的AuROC(95%CI)从0.67(0.61 - 0.74)提高到0.83(0.79 - 0.88)(P = 0.008),NEWS从0.53(0.45 - 0.61)提高到0.82(0.77 - 0.87)(P<0.001),TEWS从0.63(0.55 - 0.71)提高到0.82(0.77 - 0.87)(P = 0.002)。
与单独使用RETTS或早期预警评分相比,使用CFS结合RETTS或使用NEWS或TEWS进行结构化生命体征评估能更好地预测30天死亡率。改善预后能提供更现实的预期,并有助于在急诊科过程早期与患者进行明智的讨论并启动个性化治疗方案。