Frailty in Patients With Trauma Who Are Critically Ill: A Prospective Observational Study to Determine Feasibility, Concordance, and Construct and Predictive Validity of 2 Frailty Measures

Impact of frailty on long-term survival in patients discharged alive from hospital after an ICU admission with COVID-19

Objective

Though frailty is associated with mortality, its impact on long-term survival after an ICU admission with COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to investigate the association between frailty and long-term survival in patients after an ICU admission with COVID-19.

Design Setting and Participants

This registry-based multicentre, retrospective, cohort study included all patients ≥16 years discharged alive from the hospital following an ICU admission with COVID-19 and documented clinical frailty scale (CFS). Data from 118 ICUs between 01/01/2020 through 31/12/2020 in New Zealand and 31/12/2021 in Australia were reported in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. The patients were categorised as 'not frail' (CFS 1-3), 'mildly frail' (CFS 4-5) and 'moderately-to-severely frail' (CFS 6-8).

Main Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was survival time up to two years, which we analysed using Cox regression models.

Results

We included 4028 patients with COVID-19 in the final analysis. 'Moderately-to-severely frail' patients were older (66.6 [56.3-75.8] vs. 69.9 [60.3-78.1]; p < 0.001) than those without frailty (median [interquartile range] 53.0 [40.1-64.6]), had higher sequential organ failure assessment scores (p < 0.001), and less likely to receive mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001) than patients without frailty or mild frailty. After adjusting for confounders, patients with mild frailty (adjusted hazards ratio: 2.31, 95%-CI: 1.75-3.05) and moderate-to-severe frailty (adjusted hazards ratio: 2.54, 95%-CI: 1.89-3.42) had higher mortality rates than those without frailty.

Conclusions

Frailty was independently associated with shorter survival times to two years in patients with severe COVID-19 in ANZ following hospital discharge. Recognising frailty provides individualised patient intervention in those with frailty admitted to ICUs with severe COVID-19.

Clinical trial registration

Not applicable.

Reliability and validity of a frailty assessment tool in specialized burn care, a retrospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a predictor of adverse outcomes in elderly patients. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is an often-used frailty assessment instrument. However, the CFS's reliability and validity in patients with burn injuries are unknown. This study aimed to assess the CFS's inter-rater reliability and validity (predictive validity, known group validity and convergent validity) in patients with burn injuries treated to specialized burn care.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 50 years with burn injuries, with a primary admission in 2015-2018, were included. Based on information in the electronic patient files, a research team member scored the CFS retrospectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Krippendorff's α. Validity was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Patients with a CFS ≥ 5 were considered frail.

RESULTS

In total, 540 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.8 years (SD 11.5) and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) burned of 8.5%. The CFS was used to assess frailty in 540 patients and the reliability of the CFS was scored for 212 patients. Mean CFS was 3.4(SD 2.0). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, Krippendorff's α 0.69 (95%CI 0.62-0.74). A positive frailty screening was predictive of a non-home discharge location (OR 3.57, 95%CI 2.16-5.93), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR 1.06-8.77), and a higher mortality rate within 12 months after discharge (OR 4.61, 95%CI 1.99-10.65) after adjustment for age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. Frail patients were more likely to be older (for<70 vs. ≥70 years odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.95-4.25) and their comorbidities were more severe (ASA ≥3 vs 1-2 OR 6.43, 95%CI 4.26-9.70) (known group validity). The CFS was significantly related (rSpearman=0.55) to the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) frailty screening, reflecting a fair-good correlation between the CFS and DSMS frailty screening outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The Clinical Frailty scale is reliable and has shown its validity, including its association with adverse outcomes in patients with burn injury admitted to specialized burn care. Early frailty assessment with the CFS must be considered, to optimize early recognition and treatment of frailty.

Comparing the Clinical Frailty Scale and an International Classification of Diseases-10 Modified Frailty Index in Predicting Long-Term Survival in Critically Ill Patients

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Recently, the modified frailty index (mFI), derived from 11 comorbidities has also been used. It is unclear to what degree the mFI is a true measure of frailty rather than comorbidity. Furthermore, the mFI cannot be freely obtained outside of specific proprietary databases.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of CFS and a recently developed International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) mFI (ICD-10mFI) as frailty-based predictors of long-term survival for up to 1 year.

DESIGN

A retrospective multicentric observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

All adult (≥16 yr) critically ill patients with documented CFS scores admitted to sixteen Australian ICUs in the state of Victoria between April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 were included. We used probabilistic methods to match de-identified ICU admission episodes listed in the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database with the Victorian Admission Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index via the Victorian Data Linkage Centre.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the longest available survival following ICU admission. We compared CFS and ICD-10mFI as primary outcome predictors, after adjusting for key confounders.

RESULTS

The CFS and ICD-10mFI were compared in 7,001 ICU patients. The proportion of patients categorized as frail was greater with the CFS than with the ICD-10mFI (18.9% [n = 1,323] vs. 8.8% [n = 616]; p < 0.001). The median (IQR) follow-up time was 165 (82-276) days. The CFS predicted long-term survival up to 6 months after adjusting for confounders (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.21-1.31), whereas ICD-10mFI did not (HR = 1.04, 95% CI, 0.98-1.10). The ICD-10mFI weakly correlated with the CFS (Spearman's rho = 0.22) but had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.06). The ICD-10mFI more strongly correlated with the Charlson comorbidity index (Spearman's rho 0.30) than CFS (Spearman's rho = 0.25) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CFS, but not ICD-10mFI, predicted long-term survival in ICU patients. ICD-10mFI correlated with co-morbidities more than CFS. These findings suggest that CFS and ICD-10mFI are not equivalent.

RELEVANCE

CFS and ICD-10mFI are not equivalent in screening for frailty in critically ill patients and therefore ICD-10mFI in its current form should not be used.

Impact of frailty on clinical outcomes in patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis admitted to intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand: a retrospective registry data analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if the impact of frailty on mortality differs between patients with viral pneumonitis due to COVID-19 or other causes. We aimed to determine if a difference exists between patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis.

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database included patients aged ≥ 16 years admitted to 153 ICUs between 01/012020 and 12/31/2021 with admission diagnostic codes for viral pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The primary outcome was hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 4620 patients were studied, and 3077 (66.6%) had COVID-19. The patients with COVID-19 were younger (median [IQR] 57.0 [44.7-68.3] vs. 66.1 [52.0-76.2]; p < 0.001) and less frail (median [IQR] CFS 3 [2-4] vs. 4 [3-5]; p < 0.001) than non-COVID-19 patients. The overall hospital mortality was similar between the patients with and without COVID-19 (14.7% vs. 14.9%; p = 0.82). Frailty alone as a predictor of mortality showed only moderate discrimination in differentiating survivors from those who died but was similar between patients with and without COVID-19 (AUROC 0.68 vs. 0.66; p = 0.42). Increasing frailty scores were associated with hospital mortality, after adjusting for Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death score and sex. However, the effect of frailty was similar in patients with and without COVID-19 (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.19-1.41 vs. OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.11-1.37).

CONCLUSION

The presence of frailty was an independent risk factor for mortality. However, the impact of frailty on outcomes was similar in COVID-19 patients compared to other causes of viral pneumonitis.

A national study of 23 major trauma centres to investigate the effect of frailty on clinical outcomes in older people admitted with serious injury in England (FiTR 1): a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Older people are the largest group admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Many older people are living with frailty, a risk factor for poor recovery. We aimed to examine the effect of preinjury frailty on outcomes.

METHODS

In this multicentre observational study (FiTR 1), we extracted prospectively collected data from all 23 adult major trauma centres in England on older people (aged ≥65 years) admitted with serious injuries over a 2·5 year period from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. Geriatricians assessed the preinjury Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a 9-point scale of fitness and frailty, with a score of 1 indicating a patient is very fit and a score of 9 indicating they are terminally ill. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality, with patients censored at hospital discharge. We used a multi-level Cox regression model fitted with adjusted hazards ratios (aHRs) to assess the association between CFS and mortality, with CFS scores being grouped as follows: a score of 1-2 indicated patients were fit; a score of 3 indicated patients were managing well; and a score of 4-8 indicated patients were living with frailty (4 being very mild, 5 being mild, 6 being moderate, and 7-8 being severe).

FINDINGS

Between March 31, 2019, and Oct 31, 2021, 193 156 patients had records were held by TARN, of whom 16 504 had eligible records. Median age was 81·9 years (IQR 74·7-88·0), 9200 (55·7%) were women, and 7304 (44·3%) were men. Of 16 438 patients with a CFS score of 1-8, 11 114 (67·6%) were living with frailty (CFS of 4-8). 1660 (10·1%) patients died during their hospital stay, with a median time from admission to death of 9 days (IQR 4-18). Compared in patients with a CFS score of 1-2, risk of inpatient death was increased in those managing well (CFS score of 3; aHR 1·82 [95% CI 1·39-2·40]), living with very mild frailty (CFS score of 4: 1·99 [1·51-2·62]), living with mild frailty (CFS score of 5: 2·61 [1·99-3·43]), living with moderate frailty (CFS score of 6: 2·97 [2·26-3·90]), and living with severe frailty (CFS score of 7-8: 4·03 [3·04-5·34]).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings support inclusion of the CFS in trauma pathways to aid patient management. Additionally, people who exercise regularly (CFS of 1-2) have better outcomes than those with lower activity levels (CFS of ≥3), supporting exercise as an intervention to improve trauma outcomes.

FUNDING

None.

Comparison of the predictive ability of clinical frailty scale and hospital frailty risk score to determine long-term survival in critically ill patients: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most commonly used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) was recently proposed for the quantification of frailty. We aimed to compare the HFRS with the CFS in critically ill patients in predicting long-term survival up to one year following ICU admission.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentre cohort study from 16 public ICUs in the state of Victoria, Australia between 1st January 2017 and 30th June 2018, ICU admission episodes listed in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database registry with a documented CFS, which had been linked with the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index were examined. The HFRS was calculated for each patient using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that represented pre-existing conditions at the time of index hospital admission. Descriptive methods, Cox proportional hazards and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to investigate the association between each frailty score and long-term survival up to 1 year, after adjusting for confounders including sex and baseline severity of illness on admission to ICU (Australia New Zealand risk-of-death, ANZROD).

RESULTS

7001 ICU patients with both frailty measures were analysed. The overall median (IQR) age was 63.7 (49.1-74.0) years; 59.5% (n = 4166) were male; the median (IQR) APACHE II score 14 (10-20). Almost half (46.7%, n = 3266) were mechanically ventilated. The hospital mortality was 9.5% (n = 642) and 1-year mortality was 14.4% (n = 1005). HFRS correlated weakly with CFS (Spearman's rho 0.13 (95% CI 0.10-0.15) and had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.12, 95% CI 0.10-0.15). Both frailty measures predicted 1-year survival after adjusting for confounders, CFS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31) and HFRS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15). The CFS had better discrimination of 1-year mortality than HFRS (AUROC 0.66 vs 0.63 p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Both HFRS and CFS independently predicted up to 1-year survival following an ICU admission with moderate discrimination. The CFS was a better predictor of 1-year survival than the HFRS.

The feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applicable in acute in-hospital trauma patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Assessing frailty in patients with an acute trauma can be challenging. To provide trustworthy results, tools should be feasible and reliable. This systematic review evaluated existing evidence on the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applied in acute in-hospital trauma patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases until February 2020. Studies evaluating the feasibility and/or reliability of a multidimensional frailty assessment tool used to identify frail trauma patients were identified. The feasibility and reliability results and the risk of bias of included studies were assessed. This study was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42020175003).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies evaluating 12 frailty assessment tools were included. The risk of bias of the included studies was fair to good. The most frequently evaluated tool was the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (n = 5). All studies evaluated feasibility in terms of the percentage of patients for whom frailty could be assessed; feasibility was high (median, 97%; range, 49-100%). Other feasibility aspects, including time needed for completion, tool availability and costs, availability of instructions, and necessity of training for users, were hardly reported. Reliability was only assessed in three studies, all evaluating the CFS. The interrater reliability varied between 42% and >90% agreement, with a Krippendorff α of 0.27 to 0.41.

CONCLUSION

Feasibility of most instruments was generally high. Other aspects were hardly reported. Reliability was only evaluated for the CFS with results varying from poor to good. The reliability of frailty assessment tools for acute trauma patients needs further critical evaluation to conclude whether assessment leads to trustworthy results that are useful in clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, Level II.

The Relationship between Frailty and Mechanical Ventilation: A Population-based Cohort Study

RATIONALE

Frailty in critically ill patients is associated with higher mortality and prolonged length of stay, however little is known about the impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the relationship between frailty and total duration of mechanical ventilation and the interaction with patients' age.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using data submitted to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database between 2017 and 2020. We analyzed adult critically ill patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation within the first 24 hours of intensive care unit admission.

RESULTS

Of 59319 available patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 8331 (14%) were classified as frail. Patients with frailty had longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared to patients without frailty. Duration of mechanical ventilation increased with higher frailty score. Patients with frailty had longer intensive care unit and hospital stay with higher mortality than non-frail patients. After adjustment for relevant covariates in multivariate analyses, frailty was significantly associated with a reduced probability of cessation of invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI: 0.51-0.64]; p<0.001). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses suggested that frailty could prolong mechanical ventilation in survivors and the relationship was especially strong in younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty score was independently associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation and contributed to identify patients who were less likely to be liberated from mechanical ventilation. The impact of frailty on ventilation time varied with age and was most apparent for younger patients.

Routine Frailty Screening in Critical Illness: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with poor outcomes in critical illness. However, it is unclear whether frailty screening on admission to the ICU can be conducted routinely at the population level and whether it has prognostic importance.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can population-scale frailty screening with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) be implemented for critically ill adults in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) and can it identify patients at risk of negative outcomes?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a binational prospective cohort study of critically ill adult patients admitted between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2020, in 175 ICUs in ANZ. We classified frailty with the CFS on admission to the ICU. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), discharge destination, complications (delirium, pressure injury), and duration of survival.

RESULTS

We included 234,568 critically ill patients; 45,245 (19%) were diagnosed as living with frailty before ICU admission. Patients with vs without frailty had higher in-hospital mortality (16% vs 5%; P < .001), delirium (10% vs 4%; P < .001), longer LOS in the ICU and hospital, and increased new chronic care discharge (3% vs 1%; P < .001), with worse outcomes associated with increasing CFS category. Of patients with very severe frailty (CFS score, 8), 39% died in hospital vs 2% of very fit patients (CFS score, 1; multivariate categorical CFS score, 8 [reference, 1]; OR, 7.83 [95% CI, 6.39-9.59]; P < .001). After adjustment for illness severity, frailty remained highly significantly predictive of mortality, including among patients younger than 50 years, with improvement in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III-j score to 0.882 (95% CI, 0.879-0.885) from 0.868 (95% CI, 0.866-0.871) with the addition of frailty (P < .001).

INTERPRETATION

Large-scale population screening for frailty degree in critical illness was possible and prognostically important, with greater frailty (especially CFS score of ≥ 6) associated with worse outcomes, including among younger patients.

Frailty in Critical Care Medicine: A Review

Traditional approaches to clinical risk assessment utilize age as a marker of increased vulnerability to stress. Relatively recent advancements in the study of aging have led to the concept of the frailty syndrome, which represents a multidimensional state of depleted physiologic and psychosocial reserve and clinical vulnerability that is related to but variably present with advancing age. The frailty syndrome is now a well-established clinical entity that serves as both a guide for clinical intervention and a predictor of poor outcomes in the primary and acute care settings. The biological aspects of the syndrome broadly represent a network of interrelated perturbations involving the age-related accumulation of molecular, cellular, and tissue damage that leads to multisystem dysregulation, functional decline, and disproportionately poor response to physiologic stress. Given the complexity of the underlying biologic processes, several well-validated approaches to define frailty clinically have been developed, each with distinct and reasonable considerations. Stemming from this background, the past several years have seen a number of observational studies conducted in intensive care units that have established that the determination of frailty is both feasible and prognostically useful in the critical care setting. Specifically, frailty as determined by several different frailty measurement tools appears associated with mortality, increased health care utilization, and disability, and has the potential to improve risk stratification of intensive care patients. While substantial variability in the implementation of frailty measurement likely limits the generalizability of specific findings, the overall prognostic trends may offer some assistance in guiding management decisions with patients and their families. Although no trials have assessed interventions to improve the outcomes of critically ill older people living with frailty, the particular vulnerability of this population offers a promising target for intervention in the future.

The impact of frailty in critically ill patients after trauma: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

As our population ages, older adults are increasingly exposed to trauma. Frailty could be a useful measure to identify patients at risk of a poor outcome. This study aimed to determine the impact of frailty in an Australian trauma intensive care unit (ICU) population.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of critically ill trauma patients ≥50 years of age. Frailty was determined on admission to the ICU using the frailty phenotype. Demographic and hospital data were collected, and patients were followed up at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was 12-month mortality, and multiple regression was used to determine associated factors.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight patients were included, whose mean age was 68 years; 78.2% (108/138) were classified as major trauma (Injury Severity Score >12). Twenty-two percent (30/138) of patients were identified as frail. Patients with frailty were significantly older: however, they were less severely injured and required lower rates of surgical interventions and mechanical ventilation. Frailty was independently associated with mortality at 6 and 12 months (odds ratio: 5.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.9-18.1 and odds ratio: 7.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.5-21.9, respectively). Patients with frailty had lower measures of global functioning (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended frail 3 [1-5] vs nonfrail 6 [(5-7], p = 0.002) and health status (Euro Qol 5Q-5D-5L utility score 0.6 [0.5-0.7] vs 0.7 [0.6-0.9], p = 0.02) at 12 months than patients without frailty.

CONCLUSION

Frailty is a useful predictor of poor outcomes in critically ill trauma patients.

REGISTRATION OF PROTOCOL NUMBER

ACTRN12615000039583.

Timing and methods of frailty assessments in geriatric trauma patients: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The trauma population is aging and better prognostic measures for geriatric trauma patients are required. Frailty rather than age appears to be associated with poor outcomes. This systematic review aimed to identify the optimum frailty assessment instrument and timing of assessment in patients aged over 65 years admitted to hospital after traumatic injury. The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes associated with frailty in elderly trauma populations.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018090620). A MEDLINE and EMBASE literature search was conducted from inception to June 2019 combining the concepts of injury, geriatric, frailty, assessment and prognosis. Included studies were in patients 65 years or older hospitalised after injury and exposed to an instrument meeting consensus definition for frailty assessment. Study quality was assessed using criteria for review of prognostic studies combined with a GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight papers met inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight frailty or component instruments were reported, and assessments of pre-injury frailty were made up to 1-year post injury. Pre-injury frailty prevalence varied from 13% (13/100) to 94% (17/18), with in-hospital mortality rates from 2% (5/250) to 33% (6/18). Eleven studies found an association between frailty and mortality. Eleven studies reported an association between frailty and a composite outcome of mortality and adverse discharge destination. Generalisability and assessment of strength of associations was limited by single centre studies with inconsistent findings and overlapping cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between frailty and adverse outcomes including mortality in geriatric trauma patients were demonstrated despite a range of frailty instruments, administering clinicians, time of assessment and data sources. Although evidence gaps remain, incorporating frailty assessment into trauma systems is likely to identify geriatric patients at risk of adverse outcomes. Consistency in frailty instruments and long-term geriatric specific outcome measures will improve research relevance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III prognostic.