Frailty indexes in perioperative and critical care: a systematic review

Background/objectives: Frail patients are increasingly presenting for both perioperative and intensive care, highlighting the need for simple, valid and scaleable frailty measurement. Frailty indexes comprehensively assess a range of deficits in health, and can incorporate routinely collected data. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of frailty indexes on surgical and intensive care risk stratification and patient outcomes (mortality, complications, length of stay, and discharge location). Methods: A prospectively registered systematic review was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched to identify studies enrolling adult surgical or intensive care patients which used a frailty index. Included studies were those published subsequent to 1990, of any study design, which utilised a frailty index consisting of ≥30 health deficits. Primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were complications, length of stay (LOS) and discharge location. Study and frailty index quality were critically appraised by three independent reviewers, with findings narratively described. Results: 2026 articles were screened, from which nine prospective and four retrospective cohort studies (enrolling 2539 patients) were included. Frailty prevalence ranged between 19–62%; frailty indexes identified patients at risk of increased death [mortality rates ranging between 1.9–73.1%; reported odds ratios (ORs) for death ranging between 1.76–3.09 for frail vs. non-frail patients], surgical complications (ORs = 1.67–4.4), increased LOS, and discharge to residential care (ORs = 1.9–3.64). The term “frailty index” was found to be applied to a number of alternative measurement scales. Conclusion: Frail patients are at significantly increased risk in critical illness and the perioperative period. Better standardisation of frailty indexes is recommended

Frailty and outcomes from pneumonia in critical illness:a population-based cohort study

Background A threshold Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) of 5 (indicating mild frailty) has been proposed to guide ICU admission for UK patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. However, the impact of frailty on mortality with (non-COVID-19) pneumonia in critical illness is unknown. We examined the triage utility of the CFS in patients with pneumonia requiring ICU. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted with pneumonia to 170 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand from January 1, 2018 to September 31, 2019. We classified patients as: non-frail (CFS 1–4) frail (CFS 5–8), mild/moderately frail (CFS 5–6),and severe/very severely frail (CFS 7–8). We evaluated mortality (primary outcome) adjusting for site, age, sex, mechanical ventilation, pneumonia type and illness severity. We also compared the proportion of ICU bed-days occupied between frailty categories. Results 1852/5607 (33%) patients were classified as frail, including1291/3056 (42%) of patients aged >65 yr, who would potentially be excluded from ICU admission under UK-based COVID-19 triage guidelines. Only severe/very severe frailty scores were associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for CFS=7: 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–7.8; CFS=8 [aOR: 7.2; 95% CI: 2.6–20.0]). These patients accounted for 7% of ICU bed days. Vulnerability (CFS=4) and mild frailty (CFS=5) were associated with a similar mortality risk (CFS=4 [OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.7–3.8]; CFS=5 [OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.7–3.9]). Conclusions Patients with severe and very severe frailty account for relatively few ICU bed days as a result of pneumonia, whilst adjusted mortality analysis indicated little difference in risk between patients in vulnerable, mild, and moderate frailty categories. These data do not support CFS ≥5 to guide ICU admission for pneumonia

Frailty in very old critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand: a population-based cohort study

Objective: To explore associations between frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score of 5 or more) in very old patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and their clinical outcomes (mortality, discharge destination). Design, setting and participants: Retrospective population cohort analysis of Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Database data for all patients aged 80 years or more admitted to participating ICUs between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes: length of stay (hospital, ICU), re-admission to ICU during the same hospital admission, discharge destination (including new chronic care or nursing home admission). Results: Frailty status data were available for 15\ua0613 of 45\ua0773 patients aged 80 years or more admitted to 178 ICUs (34%); 6203 of these patients (39.7%) were deemed frail. A smaller proportion of frail than non-frail patients were men (47% v 57%), the mean illness severity scores of frail patients were slightly higher than those of non-frail patients, and they were more frequently admitted from the emergency department (28% v 21%) or with sepsis (12% v 7%) or respiratory complications (16% v 12%). In-hospital mortality was higher for frail patients (17.6% v 8.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.87 [95% CI, 1.65–2.11]). Median lengths of ICU and hospital stay were slightly longer for frail patients, and they were more frequently discharged to new nursing home or chronic care (4.9% v 2.8%; adjusted OR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.34–1.95]). Conclusions: Many very old critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand are frail, and frailty is associated with considerably poorer health outcomes. Routine screening of older ICU patients for frailty could improve outcome prediction and inform intensive care and community health care planning

The Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality prediction of old acutely admitted intensive care patients: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data

Abstract Background This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II). Results 12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS ≥ 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (≥ 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25–1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26–1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4–5, 6, and ≥ 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1–3. Conclusions Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its “continuum” better and predict ICU outcome more accurately. Trial registration: Open Science Framework (OSF: https://osf.io/8buwk/ ). Graphical Abstrac