Analysis of Rockwood et Al's Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried et Al's Frailty Phenotype as Predictors of Mortality and Other Clinical Outcomes in Older Patients Who Were Admitted to a Geriatric Ward

High-Technology Based Gait Assessment in Frail People: Associations between Spatio-Temporal and Three-Dimensional Gait Characteristics with Frailty Status across Four Different Frailty Measures

OBJECTIVE

We analyzed associations between a battery of gait characteristics and frailty status across four different frailty instruments in old patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Geriatric wards of a general hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

123 hospitalized patients aged ≥65 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Spatio-temporal and three-dimensional gait characteristics were assessed by an electronic walkway and a shoe-mounted, inertial sensor-based mobile gait analysis system. Frailty status was assessed by the frailty phenotype (FP), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), frailty index (FI), and frailty index based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGA).

RESULTS

A reduction in walking speed (FP, FI, FI-CGA), stride length (FP, FI, FI-CGA), maximum toe clearance (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), toe off angle (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), heal strike angle (FI-CGA) and greater stride length variability (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), stride time variability (FP, FI), double support time (FP, FI), and stride width (CFA, FI-CGA) were associated with frailty status across the four frailty instruments (all P < 0.05, respectively). Walking speed (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), stride length (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), maximum toe clearance (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), toe off angle (FP, CFS, FI, FI-CGA), heal strike angle (FP, FI), stride length variability (CFS, FI, FI-CGA), stride time variability (FI), double support time (FP), and stride width (FP, CFS, FI) were related with frailty severity across the four frailty instruments independent of age and sex (all P adjusted < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Gait changes in frail patients include more than solely a reduction in walking speed.

Significance of frailty for predicting adverse clinical outcomes in different patient groups with specific medical conditions

Frailty is a major health burden in an aging society. It constitutes a clinical state of reduced physiological reserves that is associated with a diminished ability to withstand internal and external stressors. Frail patients have an increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes, such as mortality, readmission to hospital, institutionalization and falls. Of further clinical interest, frailty might be at least in part reversible in some patients and subject to preventive strategies. In daily clinical practice older patients with a complex health status, who are mostly frail or at least at risk of developing frailty, are frequently cared for by geriatricians. Recently, clinicians and scientists from other medical disciplines, such as cardiology, pulmonology, gastroenterology, nephrology, endocrinology, rheumatology, surgery and critical care medicine also discovered frailty to be an interesting instrument for risk stratification of patients, including younger patients. In this review we highlight the results of recent studies that demonstrated the significance of frailty to predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients with specific medical conditions, such as cardiac, lung, liver and kidney diseases as well as diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis, trauma patients, patients undergoing surgery and critically ill patients. Multiple studies in patients with the aforementioned specific medical conditions could be identified demonstrating a predictive role of frailty for several adverse clinical outcomes. The association between frailty and adverse clinical outcomes reported in these studies was in part independent of several major potential confounder factors, such as age, sex, race, comorbidities and disabilities and were also detected in younger patients.

Assessment and Utility of Frailty Measures in Critical Illness, Cardiology, and Cardiac Surgery

Frailty is a clearly emerging theme in acute care medicine, with obvious prognostic and health resource implications. "Frailty" is a term used to describe a multidimensional syndrome of loss of homeostatic reserves that gives rise to a vulnerability to adverse outcomes after relatively minor stressor events. This is conceptually simple, yet there has been little consensus on the operational definition. The gold standard method to diagnose frailty remains a comprehensive geriatric assessment; however, a variety of validated physical performance measures, judgement-based tools, and multidimensional scales are being applied in critical care, cardiology, and cardiac surgery settings, including open cardiac surgery and transcatheter aortic value replacement. Frailty is common among patients admitted to the intensive care unit and correlates with an increased risk for adverse events, increased resource use, and less favourable patient-centred outcomes. Analogous findings have been described across selected acute cardiology and cardiac surgical settings, in particular those that commonly intersect with critical care services. The optimal methods for screening and diagnosing frailty across these settings remains an active area of investigation. Routine assessment for frailty conceivably has numerous purported benefits for patients, families, health care providers, and health administrators through better informed decision-making regarding treatments or goals of care, prognosis for survival, expectations for recovery, risk of complications, and expected resource use. In this review, we discuss the measurement of frailty and its utility in patients with critical illness and in cardiology and cardiac surgery settings.

Fried frailty phenotype assessment components as applied to geriatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

Management of geriatric patients would be simplified if a universally accepted definition of frailty for clinical use was defined. Among definitions of frailty, Fried frailty phenotype criteria constitute a common reference frame for many geriatric studies. However, this reference frame has been tested primarily in elderly patients presenting with relatively good health status.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to assess the usefulness and limitations of Fried frailty phenotype criteria in geriatric inpatients, characterized by comorbidity and functional impairments, and to estimate the frailty phenotype prevalence in this group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients of the university hospital subacute geriatric ward, aged 79.0±8.4 years (67% women and 33% men), participated in this cross-sectional study. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and Fried frailty phenotype component evaluation were performed in all patients.

RESULTS

Multimorbidity (6.0±2.8 diseases) characterized our study group, with a wide range of clinical conditions and functional states (Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living 72.2±28.2 and Mini-Mental State Examination 23.6±7.1 scores). All five Fried frailty components were assessed in 65% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] =60.8-69.2) (diagnostic group). One or more components were not feasible to be assessed in 35% of the remaining patients (nondiagnostic group) because of lack of past patient's body mass control and/or cognitive or physical impairment. Patients from the nondiagnostic group, as compared to patients from the diagnostic group, presented with more advanced age, higher prevalence of dementia, lower prevalence of hypertension, lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, Mini-Mental State Examination and Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living. Despite diagnostic limitations, we found ≥3 positive criteria (thus, frailty diagnosis) in 54.2% of the study group (95% CI =49.8-58.6), with prevalence from 31.7% in sexagenarians to 67.6% in nonagenarians.

CONCLUSION

Fried frailty phenotype criteria seem useful for geriatric inpatient assessment, despite diagnostic limitations. High prevalence of frailty among geriatric inpatients suggests that evaluation for frailty should be considered a part of the comprehensive geriatric assessment.