Frailty assessment in geriatric trauma patients: comparing the predictive value of the full and a condensed version of the Fried frailty phenotype.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY BMC Geriatrics Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x
Joninah Braunschweig, Wei Lang, Gregor Freystätter, Christian Hierholzer, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Michael Gagesch
{"title":"Frailty assessment in geriatric trauma patients: comparing the predictive value of the full and a condensed version of the Fried frailty phenotype.","authors":"Joninah Braunschweig, Wei Lang, Gregor Freystätter, Christian Hierholzer, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari, Michael Gagesch","doi":"10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"24 1","pages":"1007"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05594-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: 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).

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
老年创伤患者的虚弱评估:比较弗里德虚弱表型完整版和精简版的预测价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
873
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.
期刊最新文献
A correlation study between blood glucose fluctuation and chronic pain in the older people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Longitudinal changes following the introduction of socially assistive robots in nursing homes: a qualitative study with ICF framework and causal loop diagramming. Prevalence of cognitive impairment and metabolic syndrome among older adults in calabar metropolis and the associated risk factors. Digital divide as a determinant of health in the U.S. older adults: prevalence, trends, and risk factors. Empowering informal caregivers and nurses to take a person-centred view: adaptation and clinical utility of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS-Dem) for use in acute and community care settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1