The older surgical patient – to operate or not? A state of the art review

What patient-reported outcome measures may be suitable for research involving older adults with frailty? A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The need to develop and evaluate frailty-related interventions is increasingly important, and inclusion of patient-reported outcomes is vital. Patient-reported outcomes can be defined as measures of health, quality of life or functional status reported directly by patients with no clinician interpretation. Numerous validated questionnaires can thus be considered patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This review aimed to identify existing PROMs currently used in quantitative research that may be suitable for older people with frailty.

METHOD

PubMed and Cochrane were searched up to 24/11/22. Inclusion criteria were quantitative studies, use of a PROM, and either measurement of frailty or inclusion of older adult participants. Criteria were created to distinguish PROMs from questionnaire-based clinical assessments. 197 papers were screened. PROMs were categorized according to the domain assessed, as derived from a published consensus 'Standard Set of Health Outcome Measures for Older People'.

RESULTS

88 studies were included. 112 unique PROMs were used 289 times, most frequently the SF-36 (n = 21), EQ-5D (n = 21) and Barthel Index (n = 14). The most frequently assessed outcome domains included Mood and Emotional Health and Activities of Daily Living, with fewer assessments of Participation in Decision-Making and Carer Burden.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM usage in frailty research is highly heterogeneous. Frequently used PROMs omit important outcomes identified by older adults. Further research should evaluate the importance of specific outcomes and identify PROMs relevant to people at different stages of frailty. Consistent and appropriate PROM use in frailty research would facilitate more effective comparisons and meaningful evaluation of frailty interventions.

Results of emergency colectomy in nonagenarians and octogenarians previously labeled as prohibitive surgical risk

PURPOSE

There are no standardized criteria for what constitutes prohibitive risk for emergency abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed comparing two groups of patients having emergent colectomy. One group had previously been labeled as being prohibitive surgical risk and the other was a contemporary, non-prohibitive risk group also requiring emergency colectomy. All operations were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

There were 27 prohibitive risk patients and 81 non-prohibitive risk (control group) patients. The average age of the prohibitive risk group was 85 years (range 78-99) compared to the control group mean age of 52 years (18-79, p < 0.00001). Prohibitive risk was due to extremes of age combined with congestive heart failure in 44%, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease combined with heart failure in 19%. The groups were closely matched by the type of colectomy performed. The total complication rate was much higher in the prohibitive risk group compared to the non-prohibitive risk patients (81% versus 48%, p 0.005). But the 30-day mortality rate was similar between groups (7% versus 4%, p 0.6).

CONCLUSION

Patients who are labeled as prohibitive surgical risk may be inaccurately assessed in the majority of cases. Additional research will need to be performed to evaluate the presence of quantifiable high-risk physiological conditions, and not just comorbidities, that place a patient at high risk of death after abdominal surgery. Until then, elderly patients should not be denied colectomy based upon comorbidities alone.

Effectiveness of emergency surgery for five common acute conditions: an instrumental variable analysis of a national routine database

The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies for emergency admissions with acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia or intestinal obstruction is unknown. Data on emergency admissions for adult patients from 2010 to 2019 at 175 acute National Health Service hospitals in England were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Cohort sizes were: 268,144 (appendicitis); 240,977 (gallstone disease); 138,869 (diverticular disease); 106,432 (hernia); and 133,073 (intestinal obstruction). The primary outcome was number of days alive and out of hospital at 90 days. The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies was estimated using an instrumental variable design and is reported for the cohort and pre-specified sub-groups (age, sex, number of comorbidities and frailty level). Average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for all five cohorts were similar, with the following mean differences (95%CI) for emergency surgery minus non-emergency surgery after adjusting for confounding: -0.73 days (-2.10-0.64) for appendicitis; 0.60 (-0.10-1.30) for gallstone disease; -2.66 (-15.7-10.4) for diverticular disease; -0.07 (-2.40-2.25) for hernia; and 3.32 (-3.13-9.76) for intestinal obstruction. For patients with 'severe frailty', mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital for emergency surgery were lower than for non-emergency surgery strategies: -21.0 (-27.4 to -14.6) for appendicitis; -5.72 (-11.3 to -0.2) for gallstone disease, -38.9 (-63.3 to -14.6) for diverticular disease; -19.5 (-26.6 to -12.3) for hernia; and - 34.5 (-46.7 to -22.4) for intestinal obstruction. For patients without frailty, the mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital were: -0.18 (-1.56-1.20) for appendicitis; 0.93 (0.48-1.39) for gallstone disease; 5.35 (-2.56-13.28) for diverticular disease; 2.26 (0.37-4.15) for hernia; and 18.2 (14.8-22.47) for intestinal obstruction. Emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies led to similar average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for five acute conditions. The comparative effectiveness of emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies for these conditions may be modified by patient factors.

Frailty-aware care: giving value to frailty assessment across different healthcare settings

Healthcare systems need to adapt to better serve an aging population with complex presentations. Frailty assessments are a potential means to address this heterogeneity in aging to identify individuals at increased risk for adverse health outcomes. Furthermore, frailty assessments offer an opportunity to optimize patient care in various healthcare settings. While the vast number of frailty assessment tools available can be a source of confusion for clinicians, each tool has features adaptable to the constraints and goals of different healthcare settings. This review discusses and compares barriers, facilitators, and the application of frailty assessments in primary care, the emergency department/intensive care unit and surgical care to cover a breadth of settings with different frailty assessment considerations. The implementation of frailty-aware care across healthcare settings potentiates better healthcare outcomes for older adults.

The effect of geriatric comanagement (GC) in geriatric trauma patients treated in a level 1 trauma setting: A comparison of data before and after the implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center

INTRODUCTION

Improvements in life expectancy imply that an increase of geriatric trauma patients occurs. These patients require special attention due to their multiple comorbidity issues. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the implementation of geriatric comanagement (GC) on the allocation and clinical outcome of geriatric trauma patients.

METHODS

This observational cohort study aims to compare the demographic development and the clinical outcome in geriatric trauma patients (aged 70 years and older) before and after implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center (GC). Geriatric trauma patients admitted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 were stratified to group pre-GC and admissions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 to Group post-GC. We excluded patients requiring end-of-life treatment and those who died within 24 h or due to severe traumatic brain injury. Outcome parameters included demographic changes, medical complexity (measured by American Society of Anaesthesiology Score (ASA) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)), in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

This study includes 626 patients in Group pre-GC (mean age 80.3 ± 6.7 years) and 841 patients in Group post-GC (mean age 81.1 ± 7.3 years). Group pre-GC included 244 (39.0%) males, group post-GC included 361 (42.9%) males. The mean CCI was 4.7 (± 1.8) points in pre-GC and 5.1 (± 2.0) points in post-GC (p <0.001). In Group pre-GC, 100 patients (16.0%) were stratified as ASA 1 compared with 47 patients (5.6%) in Group post-GC (p <0.001). Group pre-GC had significantly less patients stratified as ASA 3 or higher (n = 235, 37.5%) compared with Group post-GC (n = 389, 46.3%, p <0.001). Length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly from 10.4 (± 20.3) days in Group pre-GC to 7.9 (±22.9) days in Group post-GC (p = 0.011). The 30-day mortality rate was comparable amongst these groups (pre-GC 8.8% vs. post-GC 8.9%).

CONCLUSION

This study appears to support the implementation of a geriatric trauma center, as certain improvements in the patient care were found: Despite a higher CCI and a higher number of patients with higher ASA classifications, Hospital LOS, complication rates and mortality did were not increased after implementation of the CG. The increase in the case numbers supports the fact that a higher degree of specialization leads to a response by admitting physicians, as it exceeded the expectable trend of demographic ageing. We feel that a larger data base, hopefully in a multi center set up should be undertaken to verify these results.