Comparison of frailty measures in predicting outcomes after emergency general surgery

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Surgery Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2025.109317
Dariush Yalzadeh BS , Nam Yong Cho BS , Daniel Tabibian BS , Joseph Song BS , Aboubacar Cherif BS , Barzin Badiee , Arjun Chaturvedi , George Singer MD , Peyman Benharash MD
{"title":"Comparison of frailty measures in predicting outcomes after emergency general surgery","authors":"Dariush Yalzadeh BS ,&nbsp;Nam Yong Cho BS ,&nbsp;Daniel Tabibian BS ,&nbsp;Joseph Song BS ,&nbsp;Aboubacar Cherif BS ,&nbsp;Barzin Badiee ,&nbsp;Arjun Chaturvedi ,&nbsp;George Singer MD ,&nbsp;Peyman Benharash MD","doi":"10.1016/j.surg.2025.109317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Although frailty has been recognized to adversely influence outcomes of emergency general surgery, there are limited data comparing the performance of frailty instruments among this population. We compared the discriminatory power of 4 risk prediction models across a national cohort of patients who underwent emergency general surgery to assess outcomes of interest.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Adults undergoing emergency general surgery (large bowel resection, small bowel resection, repair of perforated ulcer, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, lysis of adhesions, or laparotomy) were identified in 2016–2021 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were grouped into frail and non-frail cohorts on the basis of various frailty instruments: Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Modified 5-factor Frailty Index, Modified 11-factor Frailty Index, and Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups index. Multivariable regressions were developed to assess independent associations between frailty instruments and in-hospital mortality as well as a composite of perioperative complications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 1,385,505 hospitalizations for emergency general surgery, 57.0%, 29.9%, 26.6%, and 10.5% were identified as frail by mFI-11, Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Modified 5-factor Frailty Index, and Adjusted Clinical Groups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, Hospital Frailty Risk Score demonstrated the greatest discriminatory power for predicting in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications when compared with other frailty indices. Subjects classified as frail using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score were associated with the greatest risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 7.8; 95% confidence interval, 7.4–8.3) and composite complications (adjusted odds ratio, 8.4; 95% confidence interval, 9.3–8.5) compared with other indices across all frailty levels.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Among patients undergoing emergency general surgery, Hospital Frailty Risk Score demonstrated the greatest discrimination in predicting mortality and composite complications. Risk-stratification efforts should prioritize Hospital Frailty Risk Score in elderly patients undergoing emergency general surgery to optimize clinical outcomes and resource allocation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":22152,"journal":{"name":"Surgery","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 109317"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039606025001692","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Although frailty has been recognized to adversely influence outcomes of emergency general surgery, there are limited data comparing the performance of frailty instruments among this population. We compared the discriminatory power of 4 risk prediction models across a national cohort of patients who underwent emergency general surgery to assess outcomes of interest.

Methods

Adults undergoing emergency general surgery (large bowel resection, small bowel resection, repair of perforated ulcer, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, lysis of adhesions, or laparotomy) were identified in 2016–2021 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were grouped into frail and non-frail cohorts on the basis of various frailty instruments: Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Modified 5-factor Frailty Index, Modified 11-factor Frailty Index, and Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups index. Multivariable regressions were developed to assess independent associations between frailty instruments and in-hospital mortality as well as a composite of perioperative complications.

Results

Of 1,385,505 hospitalizations for emergency general surgery, 57.0%, 29.9%, 26.6%, and 10.5% were identified as frail by mFI-11, Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Modified 5-factor Frailty Index, and Adjusted Clinical Groups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, Hospital Frailty Risk Score demonstrated the greatest discriminatory power for predicting in-hospital mortality and perioperative complications when compared with other frailty indices. Subjects classified as frail using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score were associated with the greatest risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 7.8; 95% confidence interval, 7.4–8.3) and composite complications (adjusted odds ratio, 8.4; 95% confidence interval, 9.3–8.5) compared with other indices across all frailty levels.

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing emergency general surgery, Hospital Frailty Risk Score demonstrated the greatest discrimination in predicting mortality and composite complications. Risk-stratification efforts should prioritize Hospital Frailty Risk Score in elderly patients undergoing emergency general surgery to optimize clinical outcomes and resource allocation.
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
虚弱指标预测急诊普外科术后预后的比较
虽然虚弱已经被认为会对急诊普通外科手术的结果产生不利影响,但在这一人群中比较虚弱器械性能的数据有限。我们比较了四种风险预测模型在全国接受急诊普通外科手术患者队列中的区分能力,以评估感兴趣的结果。方法在2016-2021年全国再入院数据库中确定接受急诊普通手术(大肠切除术、小肠切除术、穿孔溃疡修复、胆囊切除术、阑尾切除术、粘连松解术或剖腹手术)的成年人。根据各种虚弱指标将患者分为虚弱组和非虚弱组:医院虚弱风险评分、修正5因素虚弱指数、修正11因素虚弱指数和约翰霍普金斯调整临床组指数。采用多变量回归来评估衰弱仪器与住院死亡率以及围手术期并发症之间的独立关联。结果1,385,505例急诊普外科住院患者中,mFI-11、医院衰弱风险评分、修正五因素衰弱指数和调整临床分组分别为57.0%、29.9%、26.6%和10.5%。经多变量调整后,与其他衰弱指标相比,医院衰弱风险评分在预测住院死亡率和围手术期并发症方面具有最大的歧视性。使用医院虚弱风险评分分类为虚弱的受试者与最大的死亡风险相关(校正优势比为7.8;95%可信区间,7.4-8.3)和复合并发症(校正优势比,8.4;95%置信区间,9.3-8.5),与所有脆弱程度的其他指数相比。结论在急诊普外科患者中,医院衰弱风险评分在预测死亡率和综合并发症方面具有最大的区别。风险分层工作应优先考虑医院虚弱风险评分,以优化急诊普外科老年患者的临床结果和资源分配。
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
Surgery
Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
687
审稿时长
64 days
期刊介绍: For 66 years, Surgery has published practical, authoritative information about procedures, clinical advances, and major trends shaping general surgery. Each issue features original scientific contributions and clinical reports. Peer-reviewed articles cover topics in oncology, trauma, gastrointestinal, vascular, and transplantation surgery. The journal also publishes papers from the meetings of its sponsoring societies, the Society of University Surgeons, the Central Surgical Association, and the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons.
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a nomogram for early prediction of splenic infarction after minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: A single-center retrospective cohort study Withdrawal of life support following interfacility transfer in older adults with traumatic brain injury Metabolic dysfunction–Associated fatty liver disease impairs intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography quality: Development and validation of a predictive model Collaborative model between breast surgery and genetic counseling reduces wait times and increases pretesting genetic counseling volume Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus open Lichtenstein primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
×
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:604180095
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