Association of Frailty with Adverse Outcomes in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection

Clinical Frailty Scale at presentation to the emergency department: interrater reliability and use of algorithm-assisted assessment

PURPOSE

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) allows health care providers to quickly stratify older patients, to support clinical decision-making. However, few studies have evaluated the CFS interrater reliability (IRR) in Emergency Departments (EDs), and the freely available smartphone application for CFS assessment was never tested for reliability. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) ratings between experienced and unexperienced staff (ED clinicians and a study team (ST) of medical students supported by a smartphone application to assess the CFS), and to determine the feasibility of CFS assignment in patients aged 65 or older at triage.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using consecutive sampling of ED patients aged 65 or older. We compared assessments by ED clinicians (Triage Clinicians (TC) and geriatric ED trained nurses (geriED-TN)) and a study team (ST) of medical students using a smartphone application for CFS scoring. The study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05400707).

RESULTS

We included 1349 patients aged 65 and older. Quadratic-weighted kappa values for ordinal CFS levels showed a good IRR between TC and ST (ϰ = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), similarly to that between TC and geriED-TN (ϰ = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) and between the ST and geriED-TN (ϰ = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.81). A CFS rating was assigned to 972 (70.2%) patients at triage.

CONCLUSION

We found good IRR in the assessment of frailty with the CFS in different ED providers and a team using a smartphone application to support rating. A CFS assessment occurred in more than two-thirds (70.2%) of patients at triage.

Factors Affecting Mortality in Elderly Hypertensive Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) endangers the health and survival of the elderly. We tried to explore factors especially kidney function which affected mortality in elderly hypertensive patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective research of 748 COVID-19 elderly patients (≥65 years old) at Zhejiang Hospital. This study compared demographic data, laboratory values, comorbidities, treatments, and clinical outcomes of hypertension and non-hypertension participants, and subgroup analysis of age and frailty was conducted in the hypertension population. Survival analysis was used to determine risk factors for death in elderly patients with COVID-19.

Results

Our study revealed that the elderly hypertensive patients with COVID-19 had higher blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum uric acid (UA), serum creatinine (Scr), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), higher incidence of severity, admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and death, and longer in-hospital stay than non-hypertensive patients, which also occurred in the very elderly hypertensive patients compared with younger hypertensive patients and frail hypertensive patients compared with no-frail hypertensive patients. In addition, the prevalence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in the oldest old hypertensive patients and frail hypertensive patients. Multivariate survival analysis indicated that the independent risk factors for death from COVID-19 were age ≥80 years, heart failure, antiviral therapy, calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy, mechanical ventilation, AKI, and eGFR<60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

Conclusion

The results of the present study suggested that the elderly hypertensive patients with COVID-19 would have more serious kidney injury, more serious disease progression and higher mortality, which also occurred in very elderly and frailty subgroup. Kidney dysfunction was closely related to mortality in elderly patients with COVID-19.

Long COVID and hypertension-related disorders: a report from the Japanese Society of Hypertension Project Team on COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects infected patients even after the acute phase and impairs their health and quality of life by causing a wide variety of symptoms, referred to as long COVID. Although the evidence is still insufficient, hypertension is suspected to be a potential risk factor for long COVID, and the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases seems to be a key facet of multiple conditions observed in long COVID. Nonetheless, there are few reports that comprehensively review the impacts of long COVID on hypertension and related disorders. As a sequel to our previous report in 2020 which reviewed the association of COVID-19 and hypertension, we summarize the possible influences of long COVID on hypertension-related organs, including the cardiovascular system, kidney, and endocrine system, as well as the pathophysiological mechanisms associated with the disorders in this review. Given that the clinical course of COVID-19 is highly affected by age and sex, we also review the impacts of these factors on long COVID. Lastly, we discuss areas of uncertainty and future directions, which may lead to better understanding and improved prognosis of clinical problems associated with COVID-19.

Prognosis for older people at presentation to emergency department based on frailty and aggregated vital signs

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification for older people based on aggregated vital signs lack the accuracy to predict mortality at presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). We aimed to develop and internally validate the Frailty adjusted Prognosis in ED tool (FaP-ED) for 30-day mortality combining frailty and aggregated vital signs.

METHODS

Single-center prospective cohort of undifferentiated ED patients aged 65 or older, consecutively sampled upon ED presentation from a tertiary Emergency Center. Vital signs were aggregated using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) as a measure of illness or injury severity and frailty was assessed with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The FaP-ED was constructed by combining NEWS and CFS in multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Measures of discrimination and calibration were assessed to evaluate predictive performance and internally validated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

2250 patients were included, 67 (1.8%) were omitted from analyses due to missing CFS, loss to follow-up, or terminal illness. Thirty-day mortality rate was 5.4% (N = 122, 95% CI = 4.5%-6.4%). Median NEWS was 1 (Inter-Quartile Range (IQR): 0-3) and median CFS was 4 (IQR: 3-5). The Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) for FaP-ED was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.83-0.90). This was significantly higher than NEWS (0.81, 95% CI = 0.77-0.85, DeLong: Z = 3.5, p < 0.001) or CFS alone (0.82, 95% CI = 0.78-0.86, DeLong: Z = 4.4, p < 0.001). Bootstrapped estimates of FaP-ED AUROC, calibration slope, and intercept were 0.86, 0.95, and -0.09, respectively, suggesting internal validity. A decision-threshold of CFS 5 and NEWS 3 was proposed based on qualitative comparison of positive Likelihood Ratio at all relevant FaP-ED cutoffs.

CONCLUSION

Combining aggregated vital signs and frailty accurately predicted 30-day mortality at ED presentation and illustrated an important clinical interaction between frailty and illness severity. Pending external validation, the Fap-ED operationalizes the concept of such "geriatric urgency" for the ED setting.

Frailty assessment in emergency medicine using the Clinical Frailty Scale: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a common condition present in older Emergency Department (ED) patients that is associated with poor health outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a tool that measures frailty on a scale from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill). The goal of this scoping review was to describe current use of the CFS in emergency medicine and to identify gaps in research.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature search to identify original research that used the CFS in emergency medicine. Several databases were searched from January 2005 to July 2021. Two independent reviewers completed screening, full text review and data abstraction, with a focus on study characteristics, CFS assessment (evaluators, timing and purpose), study outcomes and statistical methods.

RESULTS

A total of 4818 unique citations were identified; 34 studies were included in the final analysis. Among them, 76% were published after 2018, mainly in Europe or North America (79%). Only two assessed CFS in the pre-hospital setting. The nine-point scale was used in 74% of the studies, and patient consent was required in 69% of them. The main reason to use CFS was as a main exposure (44%), a potential predictor (15%) or an outcome (15%). The most frequently studied outcomes were mortality and hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

The use of CFS in emergency medicine research is drastically increasing. However, the reporting is not optimal and should be more standardized. Studies evaluating the impact of frailty assessment in the ED are needed.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W2F8N.

The clinical frailty scale as a triage tool for ICU admission of dialysis patients with COVID-19 - An ERACODA analysis

Background

Several guidelines recommend using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) for triage of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This study evaluates the impact of CFS on intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate and hospital and ICU mortality rates in hospitalized dialysis patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We analysed data of dialysis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database. The primary outcome was ICU admission rate and secondary outcomes were hospital and ICU mortality until 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess associations between CFS and outcomes.

Results

A total of 1501 dialysis patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19, of whom 219 (15%) were admitted to an ICU. The ICU admission rate was lowest (5%) in patients >75 years of age with a CFS of 7–9 and highest (27%) in patients 65–75 years of age with a CFS of 5. A CFS of 7–9 was associated with a lower ICU admission rate than a CFS of 1–3 [relative risk 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.27–0.87)]. Overall, mortality at 3 months was 34% in hospitalized patients, 65% in ICU-admitted patients and highest in patients >75 years of age with a CFS of 7–9 (69%). Only 9% of patients with a CFS ≥6 survived after ICU admission. After adjustment for age and sex, each CFS category ≥4 was associated with higher hospital and ICU mortality compared with a CFS of 1–3.

Conclusions

Frail dialysis patients with COVID-19 were less frequently admitted to the ICU. Large differences in mortality rates between fit and frail patients suggest that the CFS may be a useful complementary triage tool for ICU admission in dialysis patients with COVID-19.

The clinical frailty scale predicts 1-year mortality in emergency department patients aged 65 years and older

Objective

To validate the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) for prediction of 1‐year all‐cause mortality in the emergency department (ED) and compare its performance to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI).

Methods

Prospective cohort study at the ED of a tertiary care center in Northwestern Switzerland. All patients aged ≥65 years were included from March 18 to May 20, 2019, after informed consent. Frailty status was assessed using CFS, excluding level 9 (palliative). Acuity level was assessed using ESI. Both CFS and ESI were adjusted for age, sex and presenting condition in multivariable logistic regression. Prognostic performance was assessed for discrimination and calibration separately. Estimates were internally validated by Bootstrapping. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was determined for all levels of CFS.

Results

In the final study population of 2191 patients, 1‐year all‐cause mortality was 17% (n = 372). RMST values ranged from 219 days for CFS 8 to 365 days for CFS 1. The adjusted CFS model had an area under receiver operating characteristic of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.741–0.793), compared to 0.703 (95% CI: 0.673–0.732) for the adjusted ESI model.

Conclusion

The CFS predicts 1‐year all‐cause mortality for older ED patients and predicts survival time in a graded manner. The CFS is superior to the ESI when adjusted for age, sex, and presenting condition.