Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Unit of Health Care Analysis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Research and Development, NU Hospital Group, Trollhättan, Sweden.
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Oct 21;24(1):852. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05463-7.
The estimated prognos of a patient might influence the expected benefit/risk ratio of different interventions. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score as an independent predictor of short-, mid- and long-term mortality in critically ill older adults (aged ≥ 70) admitted to the emergency department (ED).
This is a retrospective, single-center, observational study, involving critically ill older adults, recruited consecutively in an ED. All patients were followed for 6.5-7.5 years. The effect of CFS score on mortality was adjusted for the following confounders: age, sex, Charlson's Comorbidity Index, individual comorbidities and vital parameters. All patients (n = 402) were included in the short- and mid-term analyses, while patients discharged alive (n = 302) were included in the long-term analysis. Short-term mortality was analysed with logistic regression, mid- and long-term mortality with log rank test and Cox proportional hazard models. The CFS was treated as a continuous variable in the primary analyses, and as a categorical variable in completing analyses.
There was a significant association between mortality at 30 days after ED admission and CFS score, adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.07 (1.64-2.62), p < 0.0001. There was a significant association between mortality at one year after ED admission and CFS score, adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.75 (1.53-2.01), p < 0.0001. There was a significant association between mortality 6.5-7.5 years after discharge and CFS score, adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.66 (1.46-1.89), p < 0.0001. Adjusted HRs are also reported for long-term mortality, when the CFS was treated as a categorical variable: CFS-score 5 versus 1-4: HR (95% CI) 1.98 (1.27-3.08); 6 versus 1-4: HR (95% CI) 3.60 (2.39-5.44); 7 versus 1-4: HR (95% CI) 3.95 (2.38-6.55); 8-9 versus 1-4: HR (95% CI) 20.08 (9.30-43.38). The completing analyses for short- and mid-term mortality indicated a similar risk-predictive value of the CFS.
Clinical frailty scale score was independently associated with all-cause short-, mid- and long-term mortality. A nearly doubled risk of death was observed in frail patients. This information is clinically relevant, since individualised treatment and care planning for older adults should consider risk of death in different time perspectives.
患者的预后估计可能会影响不同干预措施的预期获益/风险比。本研究的主要目的是探讨临床虚弱量表(CFS)评分作为危重症老年患者(年龄≥70 岁)入住急诊科后短期、中期和长期死亡率的独立预测因素。
这是一项回顾性、单中心、观察性研究,涉及连续招募的危重症老年患者。所有患者均随访 6.5-7.5 年。CFS 评分对死亡率的影响通过以下混杂因素进行调整:年龄、性别、Charlson 合并症指数、个体合并症和生命参数。所有患者(n=402)均纳入短期和中期分析,而存活出院的患者(n=302)纳入长期分析。采用逻辑回归分析短期死亡率,采用对数秩检验和 Cox 比例风险模型分析中期和长期死亡率。CFS 在主要分析中被视为连续变量,在完成分析中被视为分类变量。
ED 入院后 30 天死亡率与 CFS 评分显著相关,调整后的优势比(95%CI)为 2.07(1.64-2.62),p<0.0001。ED 入院后 1 年死亡率与 CFS 评分显著相关,调整后的风险比(95%CI)为 1.75(1.53-2.01),p<0.0001。出院后 6.5-7.5 年死亡率与 CFS 评分显著相关,调整后的风险比(95%CI)为 1.66(1.46-1.89),p<0.0001。当 CFS 被视为分类变量时,也报告了长期死亡率的调整风险比:CFS 评分 5 分与 1-4 分相比:风险比(95%CI)为 1.98(1.27-3.08);6 分与 1-4 分相比:风险比(95%CI)为 3.60(2.39-5.44);7 分与 1-4 分相比:风险比(95%CI)为 3.95(2.38-6.55);8-9 分与 1-4 分相比:风险比(95%CI)为 20.08(9.30-43.38)。短期和中期死亡率的补充分析表明,CFS 的风险预测价值相似。
临床虚弱量表评分与全因短期、中期和长期死亡率独立相关。虚弱患者的死亡风险增加近一倍。这一信息具有临床相关性,因为应考虑不同时间视角下老年人的死亡风险,从而为其制定个体化的治疗和护理计划。