Braunschweig Joninah, Lang Wei, Freystätter Gregor, Hierholzer Christian, Bischoff-Ferrari Heike A, Gagesch Michael
Department of Geriatrics and Aging Research, Center on Aging and Mobility, University of Zurich, c/o Stadtspital Zürich Waid Tièchestrasse 99, Zurich, 8037, Switzerland.
Center on Aging and Mobility, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Dec 19;24(1):1007. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x.
Frailty is associated with multiple negative outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. Simultaneously, frailty assessment including physical measurements for weakness (grip strength) and slowness (gait speed) poses challenges in this vulnerable patient group. We aimed to compare the full 5-component Fried Frailty Phenotype (fFP) and a condensed model (cFP) without physical measurements, with regard to predicting hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition (DD).
Prospective cohort study in patients aged 70 years and older at a level I trauma center undergoing frailty assessment by 5-component fFP (fatigue, low activity level, weight loss, weakness, and slowness). For the cFP, only fatigue, low activity level and weight loss were included. Co-primary outcomes were LOS and DD.
In 233 of 366 patients, information on all 5 frailty components was available (mean age 81.0 years [SD 6.7], 57.8% women) and included in our comparative analysis. Frailty prevalence was 25.1% and 3.1% by fFP and cFP, respectively. LOS did not differ significantly between frail and non-frail patients, neither using the fFP (p = .245) nor the cFP (p = .97). By the fFP, frail patients were 94% less likely to be discharged home independently (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.007-0.50, p = .0097), while using cFP, none of the frail patients were discharged home independently.
The fFP appears superior in identifying frail trauma patients and predicting their discharge destination compared with the condensed version. LOS in this vulnerable patient group did not differ by either frailty phenotype even if compared with those identified as non-frail.
衰弱与老年创伤患者的多种负面结局相关。同时,包括身体虚弱(握力)和行动迟缓(步速)等身体测量指标的衰弱评估,给这一脆弱患者群体带来了挑战。我们旨在比较完整的5项弗里德衰弱表型(fFP)和不包括身体测量指标的简化模型(cFP)在预测住院时间(LOS)和出院处置(DD)方面的差异。
在一级创伤中心对70岁及以上患者进行前瞻性队列研究,采用5项fFP(疲劳、低活动水平、体重减轻、虚弱和行动迟缓)进行衰弱评估。对于cFP,仅包括疲劳、低活动水平和体重减轻。共同主要结局为LOS和DD。
366例患者中有233例获得了所有5项衰弱成分的信息(平均年龄81.0岁[标准差6.7],女性占57.8%),并纳入我们的比较分析。fFP和cFP评估的衰弱患病率分别为25.1%和3.1%。无论是使用fFP(p = 0.245)还是cFP(p = 0.97),衰弱和非衰弱患者的住院时间均无显著差异。根据fFP,衰弱患者独立出院回家的可能性降低94%(比值比0.06;95%置信区间0.007 - 0.50,p = 0.0097),而使用cFP时,没有衰弱患者独立出院回家。
与简化版本相比,fFP在识别衰弱创伤患者及其出院目的地预测方面似乎更具优势。即使与被确定为非衰弱的患者相比,这一脆弱患者群体的住院时间在两种衰弱表型之间也没有差异。