Frail Patient in Hemodialysis: A New Challenge in Nephrology-Incidence in Our Area, Barcelonès Nord and Maresme

Frailty Assessment Tools in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rationale & Objective

Frailty represents a loss of physiologic reserve across multiple biological systems, confers a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, and is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the measurement properties of frailty tools used in CKD and summarized the association of frailty with death and hospitalization.

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting & Study Populations

Studies assessing multidimensional frailty tools in adults at any stage of CKD and evaluating a measurement property of interest as per the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments taxonomy.

Selection Criteria for Studies

Observational studies and randomized trials.

Data Extraction

Risk and precision measurements; measurement properties.

Analytical Approach

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment was the clinical standard for frailty identification. We pooled data using random effects models or summarized with narrative synthesis when data were too heterogenous to pool.

Results

We included 105 studies with data for at least one of the following: discriminative (n = 84; 80%), convergent (n = 20; 19%), and criterion validity (n = 2; 2%); responsiveness (n = 9; 9%) and reliability (n = 1; 0.1%). For the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), the pooled adjusted HR (aHR) for mortality was 2.01 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.35-2.98; P = 0.001; I 2 = 58%) and 1.89 (95% CI, 1.25-2.85; P = 0.002; I 2 = 0%) for hospitalization in kidney failure (KF) populations. The pooled aHR for the Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality in pre-frail versus non-frail was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.17-2.60; I 2 = 26%) and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.00-4.80; I 2 = 66%) in frail versus non-frail. The Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight scale showed consistent discriminative validity for higher mortality in non-dialysis CKD. The modified FFP (self-reported) showed acceptable discriminative validity and agreement with the FFP in patients with KF. In CKD and KF populations, agreement between clinicians' subjective impression of frailty and frailty tools was low.

Limitations

Few studies compared the accuracy of frailty tools to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Only 1 study reported reliability. Studies were of overall low-moderate quality.

Conclusions

The FFP and Clinical Frailty Scale showed acceptable discriminant validity for clinical outcomes, and the modified FFP is an alternative tool to use if direct measurements are not feasible. The evidence does not support the use of clinicians' subjective impression to identify frailty.

Use of frailty assessment instruments in nephrology populations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a clinical syndrome of accelerated aging associated with adverse outcomes. Frailty is prevalent among patients with chronic kidney disease but is infrequently assessed in clinical settings, due to lack of consensus regarding frailty definitions and diagnostic tools. This study aimed to review the practice of frailty assessment in nephrology populations and evaluate the context and timing of frailty assessment.

METHODS

The search included published reports of frailty assessment in patients with chronic kidney disease, undergoing dialysis or in receipt of a kidney transplant, published between January 2000 and November 2021. Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were examined. A total of 164 articles were included for review.

RESULTS

We found that studies were most frequently set within developed nations. Overall, 161 studies were frailty assessments conducted as part of an observational study design, and 3 within an interventional study. Studies favoured assessment of participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and transplant candidates. A total of 40 different frailty metrics were used. The most frequently utilised tool was the Fried frailty phenotype. Frailty prevalence varied across populations and research settings from 2.8% among participants with CKD to 82% among patients undergoing haemodialysis. Studies of frailty in conservatively managed populations were infrequent (N = 4). We verified that frailty predicts higher rates of adverse patient outcomes. There is sufficient literature to justify future meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

There is increasing recognition of frailty in nephrology populations and the value of assessment in informing prognostication and decision-making during transitions in care. The Fried frailty phenotype is the most frequently utilised assessment, reflecting the feasibility of incorporating objective measures of frailty and vulnerability into nephrology clinical assessment. Further research examining frailty in low and middle income countries as well as first nations people is required. Future work should focus on interventional strategies exploring frailty rehabilitation.

Valoración de la fragilidad en un centro de diálisis. ¿son más frágiles los pacientes con diabetes?

Introducción: El incremento en la inclusión de personas de edad avanzada a los programas de hemodiálisis se relaciona con un aumento de la prevalencia de fragilidad, considerada predictora de discapacidad y asociada a eventos adversos de salud. Dado su carácter reversible, es importante hacer un cribaje para mejorar la práctica clínica. Objetivo: Evaluar el grado de fragilidad y estado funcional del paciente en nuestra unidad de hemodiálisis y analizar las diferencias entre diabéticos y no diabéticos. Material y Método: Estudio observacional de corte transversal. La fragilidad se midió utilizando el fenotipo de Fried y la valoración funcional mediante las escalas Barthel, Lawton, Downton y la Short Physical Performance Battery. Se evaluó comorbilidad y riesgo de caídas con las escalas Charlson y Downton respectivamente. Se comparó entre grupos de diabéticos y no diabéticos y se analizó la relación entre la fragilidad y la edad, dependencia, comorbilidad y riesgo de caídas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 128 pacientes. El 45% tenían Diabetes. Los pacientes con diabetes tenían una edad media mayor que los no diabéticos (74,2±11 vs 67,8±15 años) y mayor comorbilidad (Charlson 8,2±2,2 vs 5,8±2,4). El 25% de los pacientes presentaron fragilidad, observando una tendencia que sugirió mayor fragilidad, peor capacidad funcional y mayor grado de dependencia en los pacientes diabéticos, aunque de forma no significativa. Conclusiones: Una cuarta parte de la población estudiada presenta fragilidad, con una tendencia más acusada a padecerla los pacientes diabéticos, que podría estar relacionada con mayor edad, mayor comorbilidad y menor capacidad funcional que los no diabéticos.

Impact of haemodialysis hours on outcomes in older patients

AIM

Previous studies report an association between longer haemodialysis treatment sessions and improved survival. Worldwide, there is a trend to increasing age among prevalent patients receiving haemodialysis. This analysis aimed to determine whether the mortality benefit of longer haemodialysis treatment sessions diminishes with increasing age.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of people who first commenced thrice-weekly haemodialysis aged ≥65 years, reported to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry from 2005 to 2015, included from 90 days after dialysis start. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox regression analysis was performed with haemodialysis session duration the exposure of interest.

RESULTS

Of 8224 people who commenced haemodialysis as their first treatment for kidney failure aged ≥65 years during this period, 4727 patients died. Longer dialysis hours per session was associated with a decreased risk of death in unadjusted analyses [hazard ratio, HR, for ≥5 h versus 4 to <4.5 h: 0.81 (0.75-0.88, p < .001)]. Patients having longer dialysis sessions were younger but had greater co-morbidity. In an adjusted model including age and other variables, the survival benefit of longer hours was only partially attenuated [HR for previous comparison: 0.75 (0.69-0.82, p < .001)], and no interaction between age and hours was demonstrated (p = .89).

CONCLUSION

The apparent survival benefit associated with longer haemodialysis session length appears to be preserved in patients 65 years or older. In practice, the benefit of longer dialysis hours should be carefully weighed against other factors in this patient group.

Frailty among chronic kidney disease patients on the kidney transplant waiting list: the sex–frailty paradox

Background

Frailty is defined as decreased physiologic reserve and resistance to stressors that predisposes patients towards poor health results. Its prevalence in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who are kidney transplant (KT) candidates is high. Frailty is associated with a higher rate of complications and mortality after transplant. It is unknown whether frailty phenotype differs depending on sex in this population.

Methods

This was a prospective longitudinal study of 455 KT candidates evaluated for frailty by physical frailty phenotype at the time of inclusion on the KT waiting list. Pre-frailty was defined as the presence of two criteria and frailty as three or more criteria. Univariate and multivariate analyses searched for associations of frailty status, frailty components and gender differences.

Results

Thirty percent of the total cohort resulted to be pre-frail (20%) or frail (10.3%), but disparities were observed between sexes, with 22.5% of men and 47.2% of women falling into one of these categories. Among frailty criteria, women presented with a higher percentage of exhaustion (39.6% versus 17%) and slowness (22.2% versus 9.6%) compared with men. Comorbidity burden was higher among frail men, whereas social factors were poorer between frail women. Disability was common among those patients who were frail, both men and women.

Conclusions

Frailty is twice as frequent in advanced CKD women as men. Frailty criteria distribution and phenotype seem to differ among sexes, which might have implications in terms of specific and individualized interventions to improve their status before transplantation.

Severity of frailty as a significant predictor of mortality for hemodialysis patients: a prospective study in China

Background: Frailty is known to be highly prevalent in older hemodialysis (HD) patients. We studied the prevalence of frailty and its associated factors in Chinese HD patients. We further studied if frailty could predict survival in HD patients. Methods: This is a prospective study involving patients receiving maintenance HD in the dialysis center of Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing. Study subjects were enrolled from October to December, 2017 and followed up for two years. Demographic data, comorbidities and biological parameters were collected. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty phenotype at baseline. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the relationship between frailty and mortality in HD patients. Kaplan-Meier was plotted using the cutoff value obtained by ROC curve to evaluate survival rates in different frailty status. Results: Total of 208 HD patients were enrolled with a mean age of 60.5±12.7 years. According to the frailty criteria, at baseline the prevalence of robust, pre-frail and frail in HD patients was 28.7%, 45.9%, and 25.4%, respectively. The two-year all-cause mortality was 18.8% (39/207) and underlying causes of death included coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), hyperkalemia, severe infection, malignant tumor and others. Survival curve showed the patients with frailty score ≥4 to have significantly shorter survival time as compared to patients with frailty score ≤ 3. Frailty predicted two-year mortality when frailty score ≥4 with a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 83.67% with an AUC of 0.819. Frailty score was positively associated with age and ratio of ultrafiltration volume to dry weight, while negatively associated with levels of serum albumin, uric acid and diastolic blood pressure after HD. Conclusions: Our results confirm frailty to be very common among HD patients and severity of frailty was a significant predictor of mortality for HD patients. Factors such as age, malnutrition and low blood pressure are the factors to be associated with frailty. Interdialytic weight gain inducing excessive ultrafiltration volume is an important risk factor.

Exploring psychosocial factors associated with frailty incidence among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

We investigated the correlation between the frailty status of maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) patients and psychosocial factors.

BACKGROUND

Varying degrees of frailty have been reported in MHD patients, which affect their quality of life.

DESIGN

We adopted a cross-sectional design in this study.

METHODS

Clinical data of 187 patients at our centre were collected from December 2017-June 2018 using a cross-sectional survey. Psychosocial factors were measured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scales and Perceived Social Support Scale. Frailty status was estimated using the fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses and loss of weight (FRAIL) scale. Spearman's correlation and multiple logistic regression analysis were conducted to identify the risk factors for frailty. This study complied with the STROBE checklist.

RESULTS

Of 187 patients, 11 cases (5.9%) of frailty were identified. Patient's age, comorbidities, parathyroid hormone level, sleep quality and depression were positively correlated with frailty (p < .05), while psychological resilience and social support were negatively correlated with frailty (p < .05). Logistic regression analysis revealed four risk factors for frailty among MHD patients, including age (p = .004), comorbidities (p = .023), depression (p = .023) and sleep disorders (p = .029). Conversely, protective factors included high psychological resilience (p = .019) and social support (p = .039).

CONCLUSION

Among MHD patients, the risk factors for frailty included age, comorbidity, depression and sleep disturbance, whereas the protective factors included psychological resilience and social support.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Frailty is not only common among older patients, but also among people of all age groups suffering from chronic diseases. Therefore, it is important to consider the health status of MHD patients and adopt targeted nursing strategies to alleviate symptoms of frailty and improve physical condition by the following ways: postpone the progress of comorbidities, improve sleep quality, control the symptoms of depression, foster psychological resilience and facilitate support from social and family.

The prevalence of frailty in patients on hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Coexistence of frailty and hemodialysis is related to higher risk of hospitalization, falls and mortality. Given the potential reversibility of frailty, reaching the epidemiology of frailty in hemodialysis is of great importance. However, estimates of the prevalence of frailty in patients on hemodialysis vary widely. We tried to synthesize the existing body of literature on the prevalence of frailty in patients on hemodialysis.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane for studies of the prevalence in patients on hemodialysis. The prevalence of frailty was synthesized across eligible studies using a random-effects model. We explored potential origin of heterogeneity in the estimates by meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Prevalence range from 6.0 to 82.0% and the pooled prevalence of frailty in patients on dialysis was 34.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24.5-44.1%; z = 6.87; p = 0.00). The pooled estimates of prevalence for patients aged < 55, 55-65, and ≥ 65 were 56.0% (95% CI 28.9-83.2%; z = 4.04; p = 0.00), 32.3% (95% CI 22.9-41.7%; z = 6.74; p = 0.00), and 20.3% (95% CI 7.9-32.8%; z = 3.2; p = 0.00), respectively. There were no significant relationships between frailty in hemodialysis and factors such as years of publication, sample size (continuous), sample size(> 500 vs ≤ 500), diagnostic method (the Fried Frailty vs other), country (Europe & USA vs Asia) and duration of hemodialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty influences almost three in ten patients on hemodialysis. Understanding the underlying pathophysiology mechanisms and weakening the impacts of frailty in patients on hemodialysis are called on to action in the future work.

Contributors, risk associates, and complications of frailty in patients with chronic kidney disease: a scoping review

Frailty exhibits diverse influences on health-related outcomes and represents a surrogate of increased susceptibility to harmful injuries. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at a higher risk of accelerated biologic aging, and, in this population, the concept of frailty emerges as an instrumental measurement of physiologic reserves. However, a comprehensive description of known independent contributors to, and risk associates of, frailty in these patients remain unavailable. In the present review, original studies up to 28 February 2019 that assessed frailty in patients with all stages of CKD were retrieved and reviewed, with results extracted and summarized. By pooling 62 original investigations, 58.1% and 49.1% used cohort and cross-sectional designs, respectively. Dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease patients (n = 39; 62.9%) were the most commonly examined population, followed by those with nondialysis CKD (n = 12; 19.4%) and those receiving renal transplantation (n = 11; 17.7%). Contributors to frailty in CKD patients included sociodemographic factors, smoking, CKD severity, organ-specific comorbidities, depression, hypoalbuminemia, and low testosterone levels. Conversely, the development of frailty was potentially associated with the emergence of cardiometabolic, musculoskeletal, and cerebral complications; mental distress; and a higher risk of subsequent functional and quality-of-life impairment. Moreover, frailty in CKD patients increased healthcare utilization and consistently elevated mortality among affected ones. Based on the multitude of contributors to frailty and its diverse health influences, a multifaceted approach to manage CKD patients with frailty is needed, and its potential influences on outcomes besides mortality need to be considered.