User login
Study Overview
Objective. To evaluate the usefulness of the Frailty Index (FI) as a prognostic indicator of adverse outcomes in geriatric trauma patients.
Design. Prospective cohort study.
Setting and participants. Geriatric (aged 65 and over) trauma patients admitted to inpatient units at a Level 1 trauma center in Arizona were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they were intubated/nonresponsive with no family members present or transferred from another institution (eg, skilled nursing facility). The following categories of data were collected: (a) patient demographics, (b) type and mechanism of injury, (c) vital signs (eg, Glasgow coma scale score, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature), (d) need for operative intervention, (e) in-hospital complications, (f) hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, and (g) discharge disposition.
Patients or, in the case of nonresponsive patients, their closest relative, responded to the 50-item Frailty Index questionnaire, which includes questions regarding age, comorbid conditions, medications, activities of daily living (ADLs), social activities, mood, and nutrition. FI score ranges from 0 (non-frail) to 1 (frail), with an FI of 0.25 or more indicative of frailty based on established guidelines. Patients were categorized as frail or non-frail according to their FI scores and were followed during the course of their hospitalization.
Main outcome measure. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital complications. In-hospital complications included myocardial infarction, cardiopulmonary arrest, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, renal insufficiency, and reoperation. The secondary outcome measure was adverse discharge disposition, which was defined as death during the course of hospitalization or discharge to a skilled nursing facility.
Main results. The sample consisted of 250 patients with a mean age of 77.9 years. Among these, 44.0% were considered frail. Patients with frailty were more likely to have a higher Injury Severity Score (P = 0.04) and a higher mean FI (P = 0.01) than those without frailty. There were no statistically significant differences with respect to age (P = 0.21), mechanism of injury (P = 0.09), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.30), or Glasgow Coma Scale score (P = 0.91) between the groups.
Patients with frailty were more likely to develop in-hospital complications (37.3% vs 21.4%, P = 0.001) than those without frailty. Among these complications, pneumonia and urinary tract infection were the most common. There were no differences in the rate of re-operation (P = 0.54) between the 2 groups. An FI of 0.25 or higher was associated with the development of in-hospital complications (P = 0.001) even after adjust-ing for age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and Injury Severity Score.
Frail patients had longer hospital length of stay (P = 0.01) and ICU length of stay (P = 0.01), and were more likely to have adverse discharge disposition (37.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.001). All patients who died during the course of hospitalization (n = 5) were considered frail. Frailty was also found to be a predictor of adverse discharge disposition (P = 0.001) after adjustment for age, male sex, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury.
Conclusion. The FI is effective in identifying geriatric trauma patients who are vulnerable to poor health outcomes.
Commentary
The diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients is complicated by the presence of multiple geriatric syndromes, including frailty [1]. Frailty is defined as increased vulnerability to negative health outcomes, marked by physical and functional decline, that eventually leads to disability, dependency, and mortality [2]. Factors such as age, malnutrition, and disease give way to dysregulations of bodily systems that eventually lead to reductions in mobility, strength, and cognition in frail older adults [3]. In turn, frail patients, who lack the physiological reserves to withstand illness and adapt to stressors, experience high incidences of hospitalizations, mortality, and reduced quality of life. Unsurprisingly, mortality rates among geriatric trauma patients are higher than those found in ordinary adult trauma patients [4]. It is, therefore, essential to identify patients with frailty at the outset of hospitalization in order to improve health outcomes and reduce mortality rates in this population. Yet, there is a dearth of assessment tools to predict outcomes in frail trauma patients [5].
This study has several strengths. Outcome measures are plainly stated. The inclusion criteria was broad enough to include most geriatric trauma patients, but the authors eliminated a number of confounders by excluding patients admitted from institutional settings, who may have been more susceptible to negative health outcomes at baseline than noninstitutionalized adults. Recruitment strategies were acceptable and reflect ethical standards. Groups were defined based on an accepted and previously validated FI cutoff. Lack of blinding did not threaten the study’s design given that most outcomes were beyond the control of study participants. Multivariate regression adjusted for a number of potential confounders including age, length of hospitalization, and injury severity. The Injury Severity Score, the Abbreviated Injury Scale score, and the Glasgow Coma Scale score are validated instruments that are widely used and enable standardized assessments of cognition and degree of injury.
The study methodology also possesses a number of weaknesses. The authors followed patients from admission to discharge; however, they did not re-evaluate patients following their release from the inpatient setting. It is, therefore, not clear whether the FI is predictive of quality of life, functional status, or hospital readmissions upon discharge into the community. The cohort was largely male (69.2%) and predominately Caucasian. Participants were recruited from only one medical center. All of these limit the study’s generalizability. In addition, the authors do not clarify how they came to define the criteria for in-hospital complications or adverse discharge disposition. For example, the study does not consider skin breakdown, a common concern among older patients who are hospitalized, as an in-hospital complication. In addition, the authors did not adjust for the number of diagnoses at baseline or the presence of chronic comorbid conditions, which are also associated with negative health outcomes.
Applications for Clinical Practice
Although lengthy, with over 50 variables in 5 categories, the FI has the potential to help health care providers improve risk stratification, assess patient acuity, and formulate treatment plans to improve the health of frail elderly patients. The FI will enable hospitals to direct appropriate resources, including staff, to the most vulnerable subsets of patients in order to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Moreover, awareness of frailty enables greater discussion between patients and families of trauma patients about the risks and benefits of complex intervention, increases referrals to palliative care, and improves quality of life in this population [6].
—Tina Sadarangani, MSN, APRN, and Allison Squires, PhD, RN, New York University College of Nursing
1. Rich MW. Heart failure in the oldest patients: the impact of comorbid conditions. Am J Geriatr Cardiol 2005;14:134–41.
2. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, et al. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:255–63.
3. Lang PO, Michel JP, Zekry D. Frailty syndrome: a transitional state in a dynamic process. Gerontology 2009;55:539–49.
4. Hashmi A, Ibrahim-Zada I, Rhee P, et al. Predictors of mortality in geriatric trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014;76:894–901.
5. American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program. ACS TQIP geriatric trauma management guidelines. Available at https://mtqip.org/docs/.
6. Koller K, Rockwood K. Frailty in older adults: implications for end-of-life care. Cleve Clin J Med 2013;80:168–74.
Study Overview
Objective. To evaluate the usefulness of the Frailty Index (FI) as a prognostic indicator of adverse outcomes in geriatric trauma patients.
Design. Prospective cohort study.
Setting and participants. Geriatric (aged 65 and over) trauma patients admitted to inpatient units at a Level 1 trauma center in Arizona were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they were intubated/nonresponsive with no family members present or transferred from another institution (eg, skilled nursing facility). The following categories of data were collected: (a) patient demographics, (b) type and mechanism of injury, (c) vital signs (eg, Glasgow coma scale score, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature), (d) need for operative intervention, (e) in-hospital complications, (f) hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, and (g) discharge disposition.
Patients or, in the case of nonresponsive patients, their closest relative, responded to the 50-item Frailty Index questionnaire, which includes questions regarding age, comorbid conditions, medications, activities of daily living (ADLs), social activities, mood, and nutrition. FI score ranges from 0 (non-frail) to 1 (frail), with an FI of 0.25 or more indicative of frailty based on established guidelines. Patients were categorized as frail or non-frail according to their FI scores and were followed during the course of their hospitalization.
Main outcome measure. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital complications. In-hospital complications included myocardial infarction, cardiopulmonary arrest, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, renal insufficiency, and reoperation. The secondary outcome measure was adverse discharge disposition, which was defined as death during the course of hospitalization or discharge to a skilled nursing facility.
Main results. The sample consisted of 250 patients with a mean age of 77.9 years. Among these, 44.0% were considered frail. Patients with frailty were more likely to have a higher Injury Severity Score (P = 0.04) and a higher mean FI (P = 0.01) than those without frailty. There were no statistically significant differences with respect to age (P = 0.21), mechanism of injury (P = 0.09), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.30), or Glasgow Coma Scale score (P = 0.91) between the groups.
Patients with frailty were more likely to develop in-hospital complications (37.3% vs 21.4%, P = 0.001) than those without frailty. Among these complications, pneumonia and urinary tract infection were the most common. There were no differences in the rate of re-operation (P = 0.54) between the 2 groups. An FI of 0.25 or higher was associated with the development of in-hospital complications (P = 0.001) even after adjust-ing for age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and Injury Severity Score.
Frail patients had longer hospital length of stay (P = 0.01) and ICU length of stay (P = 0.01), and were more likely to have adverse discharge disposition (37.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.001). All patients who died during the course of hospitalization (n = 5) were considered frail. Frailty was also found to be a predictor of adverse discharge disposition (P = 0.001) after adjustment for age, male sex, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury.
Conclusion. The FI is effective in identifying geriatric trauma patients who are vulnerable to poor health outcomes.
Commentary
The diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients is complicated by the presence of multiple geriatric syndromes, including frailty [1]. Frailty is defined as increased vulnerability to negative health outcomes, marked by physical and functional decline, that eventually leads to disability, dependency, and mortality [2]. Factors such as age, malnutrition, and disease give way to dysregulations of bodily systems that eventually lead to reductions in mobility, strength, and cognition in frail older adults [3]. In turn, frail patients, who lack the physiological reserves to withstand illness and adapt to stressors, experience high incidences of hospitalizations, mortality, and reduced quality of life. Unsurprisingly, mortality rates among geriatric trauma patients are higher than those found in ordinary adult trauma patients [4]. It is, therefore, essential to identify patients with frailty at the outset of hospitalization in order to improve health outcomes and reduce mortality rates in this population. Yet, there is a dearth of assessment tools to predict outcomes in frail trauma patients [5].
This study has several strengths. Outcome measures are plainly stated. The inclusion criteria was broad enough to include most geriatric trauma patients, but the authors eliminated a number of confounders by excluding patients admitted from institutional settings, who may have been more susceptible to negative health outcomes at baseline than noninstitutionalized adults. Recruitment strategies were acceptable and reflect ethical standards. Groups were defined based on an accepted and previously validated FI cutoff. Lack of blinding did not threaten the study’s design given that most outcomes were beyond the control of study participants. Multivariate regression adjusted for a number of potential confounders including age, length of hospitalization, and injury severity. The Injury Severity Score, the Abbreviated Injury Scale score, and the Glasgow Coma Scale score are validated instruments that are widely used and enable standardized assessments of cognition and degree of injury.
The study methodology also possesses a number of weaknesses. The authors followed patients from admission to discharge; however, they did not re-evaluate patients following their release from the inpatient setting. It is, therefore, not clear whether the FI is predictive of quality of life, functional status, or hospital readmissions upon discharge into the community. The cohort was largely male (69.2%) and predominately Caucasian. Participants were recruited from only one medical center. All of these limit the study’s generalizability. In addition, the authors do not clarify how they came to define the criteria for in-hospital complications or adverse discharge disposition. For example, the study does not consider skin breakdown, a common concern among older patients who are hospitalized, as an in-hospital complication. In addition, the authors did not adjust for the number of diagnoses at baseline or the presence of chronic comorbid conditions, which are also associated with negative health outcomes.
Applications for Clinical Practice
Although lengthy, with over 50 variables in 5 categories, the FI has the potential to help health care providers improve risk stratification, assess patient acuity, and formulate treatment plans to improve the health of frail elderly patients. The FI will enable hospitals to direct appropriate resources, including staff, to the most vulnerable subsets of patients in order to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Moreover, awareness of frailty enables greater discussion between patients and families of trauma patients about the risks and benefits of complex intervention, increases referrals to palliative care, and improves quality of life in this population [6].
—Tina Sadarangani, MSN, APRN, and Allison Squires, PhD, RN, New York University College of Nursing
Study Overview
Objective. To evaluate the usefulness of the Frailty Index (FI) as a prognostic indicator of adverse outcomes in geriatric trauma patients.
Design. Prospective cohort study.
Setting and participants. Geriatric (aged 65 and over) trauma patients admitted to inpatient units at a Level 1 trauma center in Arizona were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they were intubated/nonresponsive with no family members present or transferred from another institution (eg, skilled nursing facility). The following categories of data were collected: (a) patient demographics, (b) type and mechanism of injury, (c) vital signs (eg, Glasgow coma scale score, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature), (d) need for operative intervention, (e) in-hospital complications, (f) hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, and (g) discharge disposition.
Patients or, in the case of nonresponsive patients, their closest relative, responded to the 50-item Frailty Index questionnaire, which includes questions regarding age, comorbid conditions, medications, activities of daily living (ADLs), social activities, mood, and nutrition. FI score ranges from 0 (non-frail) to 1 (frail), with an FI of 0.25 or more indicative of frailty based on established guidelines. Patients were categorized as frail or non-frail according to their FI scores and were followed during the course of their hospitalization.
Main outcome measure. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital complications. In-hospital complications included myocardial infarction, cardiopulmonary arrest, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, urinary tract infection, deep venous thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, renal insufficiency, and reoperation. The secondary outcome measure was adverse discharge disposition, which was defined as death during the course of hospitalization or discharge to a skilled nursing facility.
Main results. The sample consisted of 250 patients with a mean age of 77.9 years. Among these, 44.0% were considered frail. Patients with frailty were more likely to have a higher Injury Severity Score (P = 0.04) and a higher mean FI (P = 0.01) than those without frailty. There were no statistically significant differences with respect to age (P = 0.21), mechanism of injury (P = 0.09), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.30), or Glasgow Coma Scale score (P = 0.91) between the groups.
Patients with frailty were more likely to develop in-hospital complications (37.3% vs 21.4%, P = 0.001) than those without frailty. Among these complications, pneumonia and urinary tract infection were the most common. There were no differences in the rate of re-operation (P = 0.54) between the 2 groups. An FI of 0.25 or higher was associated with the development of in-hospital complications (P = 0.001) even after adjust-ing for age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and Injury Severity Score.
Frail patients had longer hospital length of stay (P = 0.01) and ICU length of stay (P = 0.01), and were more likely to have adverse discharge disposition (37.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.001). All patients who died during the course of hospitalization (n = 5) were considered frail. Frailty was also found to be a predictor of adverse discharge disposition (P = 0.001) after adjustment for age, male sex, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury.
Conclusion. The FI is effective in identifying geriatric trauma patients who are vulnerable to poor health outcomes.
Commentary
The diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients is complicated by the presence of multiple geriatric syndromes, including frailty [1]. Frailty is defined as increased vulnerability to negative health outcomes, marked by physical and functional decline, that eventually leads to disability, dependency, and mortality [2]. Factors such as age, malnutrition, and disease give way to dysregulations of bodily systems that eventually lead to reductions in mobility, strength, and cognition in frail older adults [3]. In turn, frail patients, who lack the physiological reserves to withstand illness and adapt to stressors, experience high incidences of hospitalizations, mortality, and reduced quality of life. Unsurprisingly, mortality rates among geriatric trauma patients are higher than those found in ordinary adult trauma patients [4]. It is, therefore, essential to identify patients with frailty at the outset of hospitalization in order to improve health outcomes and reduce mortality rates in this population. Yet, there is a dearth of assessment tools to predict outcomes in frail trauma patients [5].
This study has several strengths. Outcome measures are plainly stated. The inclusion criteria was broad enough to include most geriatric trauma patients, but the authors eliminated a number of confounders by excluding patients admitted from institutional settings, who may have been more susceptible to negative health outcomes at baseline than noninstitutionalized adults. Recruitment strategies were acceptable and reflect ethical standards. Groups were defined based on an accepted and previously validated FI cutoff. Lack of blinding did not threaten the study’s design given that most outcomes were beyond the control of study participants. Multivariate regression adjusted for a number of potential confounders including age, length of hospitalization, and injury severity. The Injury Severity Score, the Abbreviated Injury Scale score, and the Glasgow Coma Scale score are validated instruments that are widely used and enable standardized assessments of cognition and degree of injury.
The study methodology also possesses a number of weaknesses. The authors followed patients from admission to discharge; however, they did not re-evaluate patients following their release from the inpatient setting. It is, therefore, not clear whether the FI is predictive of quality of life, functional status, or hospital readmissions upon discharge into the community. The cohort was largely male (69.2%) and predominately Caucasian. Participants were recruited from only one medical center. All of these limit the study’s generalizability. In addition, the authors do not clarify how they came to define the criteria for in-hospital complications or adverse discharge disposition. For example, the study does not consider skin breakdown, a common concern among older patients who are hospitalized, as an in-hospital complication. In addition, the authors did not adjust for the number of diagnoses at baseline or the presence of chronic comorbid conditions, which are also associated with negative health outcomes.
Applications for Clinical Practice
Although lengthy, with over 50 variables in 5 categories, the FI has the potential to help health care providers improve risk stratification, assess patient acuity, and formulate treatment plans to improve the health of frail elderly patients. The FI will enable hospitals to direct appropriate resources, including staff, to the most vulnerable subsets of patients in order to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Moreover, awareness of frailty enables greater discussion between patients and families of trauma patients about the risks and benefits of complex intervention, increases referrals to palliative care, and improves quality of life in this population [6].
—Tina Sadarangani, MSN, APRN, and Allison Squires, PhD, RN, New York University College of Nursing
1. Rich MW. Heart failure in the oldest patients: the impact of comorbid conditions. Am J Geriatr Cardiol 2005;14:134–41.
2. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, et al. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:255–63.
3. Lang PO, Michel JP, Zekry D. Frailty syndrome: a transitional state in a dynamic process. Gerontology 2009;55:539–49.
4. Hashmi A, Ibrahim-Zada I, Rhee P, et al. Predictors of mortality in geriatric trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014;76:894–901.
5. American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program. ACS TQIP geriatric trauma management guidelines. Available at https://mtqip.org/docs/.
6. Koller K, Rockwood K. Frailty in older adults: implications for end-of-life care. Cleve Clin J Med 2013;80:168–74.
1. Rich MW. Heart failure in the oldest patients: the impact of comorbid conditions. Am J Geriatr Cardiol 2005;14:134–41.
2. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, et al. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:255–63.
3. Lang PO, Michel JP, Zekry D. Frailty syndrome: a transitional state in a dynamic process. Gerontology 2009;55:539–49.
4. Hashmi A, Ibrahim-Zada I, Rhee P, et al. Predictors of mortality in geriatric trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014;76:894–901.
5. American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program. ACS TQIP geriatric trauma management guidelines. Available at https://mtqip.org/docs/.
6. Koller K, Rockwood K. Frailty in older adults: implications for end-of-life care. Cleve Clin J Med 2013;80:168–74.