Measuring frailty in the older surgical patient: the case for evidence synthesis

Unmet Questions About Frailty in Kidney Transplant Candidates

Frailty occurs frequently among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, especially among women. Assessing frailty in kidney transplant (KT) candidates is crucial for informing them about associated risks. However, there is poor agreement between frailty scales and research on their correlation with transplant outcomes. Being prefrail significantly impacts both graft and patient survival, often beginning with just 1 Fried criterion. Rather than viewing frailty as a categorical state, it should be regarded as a spectrum ranging from 1 to 5 criteria, with the risk of adverse outcomes escalating as frailty worsens. Frailty status fluctuates during the waiting period for KT; hence, a 1-time frailty evaluation is insufficient to determine risks and implement strategies for improving functional status. Further research should investigate the components of frailty that most frequently change during this waiting period and establish strategies to prevent or reverse frailty. Although careful evaluation of frail KT candidates is necessary to prevent early complications and mortality, exclusion based solely on a frailty score is unwarranted. Instead, efforts should focus on timely interventions to enhance their condition before transplantation. Although evidence is limited, exercise programs appear feasible and yield positive results. A pretransplant clinical framework encompassing multimodal prehabilitation-comprising physical therapy, nutritional measures, and psychological support-during the waiting list period may help alleviate the effects of frailty and poor fitness after KT, ultimately improving key outcomes. Despite logistical challenges, there is a pressing need for interventional trials in this area.

[Preoperative evaluation of adult patients before elective, non-cardiothoracic surgery : A joint recommendation of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the German Society for Surgery and the German Society for Internal Medicine]

The 70 recommendations summarize the current status of preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. Based on the joint publications of the German scientific societies for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine (DGAI), surgery (DGCH), and internal medicine (DGIM), which were first published in 2010 and updated in 2017, as well as the European guideline on preoperative cardiac risk evaluation published in 2022, a comprehensive re-evaluation of the recommendation takes place, taking into account new findings, the current literature, and current guidelines of international professional societies. The revised multidisciplinary recommendation is intended to facilitate a structured and common approach to the preoperative evaluation of patients. The aim is to ensure individualized preparation for the patient prior to surgery and thus to increase patient safety. Taking into account intervention- and patient-specific factors, which are indispensable in the preoperative risk evaluation, the perioperative risk for the patient should be minimized and safety increased. The recommendations for action are summarized under "General Principles (A)," "Advanced Diagnostics (B)," and the "Preoperative Management of Continuous Medication (C)." For the first time, a rating of the individual measures with regard to their clinical relevance has been given in the present recommendation. A joint and transparent agreement is intended to ensure a high level of patient orientation while avoiding unnecessary preliminary examinations, to shorten preoperative examination procedures, and ultimately to save costs. The joint recommendation of DGAI, DGCH and DGIM reflects the current state of knowledge as well as the opinion of experts. The recommendation does not replace the individualized decision between patient and physician about the best preoperative strategy and treatment.

The impact of prehabilitation on outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Prehabilitation comprises multidisciplinary preoperative interventions including exercise, nutritional optimisation and psychological preparation aimed at improving surgical outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, CINAHAL and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating unimodal (exercise) or multimodal prehabilitation programmes. Meta-analysis was limited to length of stay (primary end point), severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ Grade 3) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4 software.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs, 10 observational) reporting on 3339 patients (1468 prehabilitation group, 1871 control group) were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 74.0 (71.0-78.4) years. Multimodal prehabilitation was applied in fifteen studies and unimodal in one. Meta-analysis of nine studies showed a reduction in hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference -1.07 days, 95 % CI -1.60 to -0.53 days, P < 0.0001, I2 = 19 %). Ten studies addressed severe complications and a meta-analysis suggested a decline in occurrence by up to 44 % (odds ratio 0.56, 95 % CI 0.37 to 0.82, P < 0.004, I2 = 51 %). Four studies provided data on preoperative 6MWT. The pooled weighted mean difference was 40.1 m (95 % CI 32.7 to 47.6 m, P < 0.00001, I2 = 24 %), favouring prehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Given the significant impact on shortening length of stay and reducing severe complications, prehabilitation should be encouraged in frail, older and high-risk adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review (FAVOUR) protocol: single-centre prospective cohort study comparing feasibility and prognostic value of commonly used frailty assessment tools

INTRODUCTION

Frailty has consistently demonstrated associations with poorer healthcare outcomes. Vascular guidelines have recognised the importance of frailty assessment. However, an abundance of frailty tools and a lack of prospective studies confirming suitability of routine frailty assessment in clinical practice has delayed the uptake of these guidelines. The Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review study speaks to this evidence gap. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of implementing routine frailty assessment in a reproducible outpatient setting. Secondary objectives include comparing prognostic values and interuser agreement across five frailty assessment tools.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This single-centre prospective cohort study of feasibility is conducted in a rapid-referral vascular surgery clinic, serving a population of 2 million. Adults with capacity (>18 years), attending a clinic for any reason, are eligible for inclusion. Five assessments are completed by patient (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frail NonDisabled Questionnaire), clinician (CFS, Healthcare Improvement Scotland FRAIL tool and 'Initial Clinical Evaluation') and researcher (11-item modified Frailty Index). Consistent with feasibility objectives, outcome measures include recruitment rates, frailty assessment completion rates, time-to-complete assessments and interuser variability. Electronic follow-up at 30 days and 1 year will assess home-time and mortality as prognostic indicators. Patients treated surgically/endovascularly will undergo additional 30-day and 1-year postoperative follow-up, outcome measures include: surgical procedure, mortality, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo Classification), length of stay, readmission rates, non-home discharge, home-time, higher social care requirements on discharge and amputation-free survival. Prognostic value will be compared by area under receiver operating characteristic curves. Continuous outcome variables will be analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Interuser agreement will be compared by percentage agreement in Cohen's kappa coefficient.  ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is sponsored by National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde (R&IUGN23CE014). London-Riverside REC (23/PR/0062) granted ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed vascular surgery and geriatric medicine themed journals and presentation at similar scientific conferences.

TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06040658. Stage of study: pre-results.

Anesthesia and perioperative pain relief in the frail elderly patient

Demand for anesthesia and analgesia for the frail elderly is continuously increasing as the likelihood of encountering very elderly, very vulnerable, and very compromised patients has, ever so subtly, increased over the last three decades. The anesthesiologist has, increasingly, been obliged to offer professional services to frail patients. Fortunately, there has been a dramatic improvement in medications, methods of drug delivery, critical monitoring, and anesthesia techniques. Specific methodologies peculiar to the frail are now taught and practiced across all anesthesia subspecialties. However, administering anesthesia for the frail elderly is vastly different to giving an anesthetic to the older patient. Frail patients are increasingly cared for in specialized units-geriatric intensive therapy units, post-acute care services, palliative, hospices, and supportive care and aged care facilities. Several medications (e.g., morphine-sparing analgesics) more suited to the frail have become universally available in most centers worldwide so that best-practice, evidence-based anesthesia combinations of drugs and techniques are now increasingly employed. Every anesthetic and pain management techniques in the frail elderly patient are going to be discussed in this review.

Frailty assessment as part of transplant listing: yes, no or maybe?

Frailty, characterized by a decreased physiological reserve and an increased vulnerability to stressors, is common among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. In this review, we present and summarize the key arguments for and against the assessment of frailty as part of KT evaluation. The key arguments for including frailty were: (i) sheer prevalence and far-reaching consequences of frailty on KT, and (ii) the ability to conduct a more holistic and objective evaluation of candidates, removing the inaccuracy associated with 'eye-ball' assessments of transplant fitness. The key argument against were: (i) lack of agreement on the definition of frailty and which tools should be used in renal populations, (ii) a lack of clarity on how, by whom and how often frailty assessments should be performed, and (iii) a poor understanding of how acute stressors affect frailty. However, it is the overwhelming opinion that the time has come for frailty assessments to be incorporated into KT listing. Although ongoing areas of uncertainty exist and further evidence development is needed, the well-established impact of frailty on clinical and experiential outcomes, the invaluable information obtained from frailty assessments, and the potential for intervention outweigh these limitations. Proactive and early identification of frailty allows for individualized and improved risk assessment, communication and optimization of candidates.

Frailty affects prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The prevalence of colorectal cancer has remained high. Most patients have already developed into the middle and advanced stage when they are diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and a small number of them are accompanied by metastasis. In recent years, frailty has been recognized as an important factor affecting the prognosis of colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the value of frailty on prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer after treatment.

Method

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web Of Science databases up until March2022. A total of 18 studies were retrieved that met the inclusion criteria, including 9 prospective studies and 9 retrospective studies. Frailty screening tools, proportion of frail patients, and outcomes of colorectal cancer patients after treatment were recorded.

Result

18 studies were included with a total of 352,535 participants. Regardless of differences in frailty screening and treatment approaches, outcomes for frailty patients were less favorable in all studies. Compared with the non-frail group, the frail group had higher mortality, more serious complications, more postoperative blood transfusions and delirium, and more support outside the home.

Conclusion

Although there is no uniform standard for frailty screening, assessing the frailty of colorectal cancer patients is of great significance for predicting prognosis of patients after treatment.

Frailty and emergency surgery: identification and evidence-based care for vulnerable older adults

Frailty is a multidimensional state related to accumulation of age- and disease-related deficits across multiple domains. Older people represent the fastest growing segment of the peri-operative population, and 25-50% of older surgical patients live with frailty. When frailty is present before surgery, adjusted rates of morbidity and mortality increase at least two-fold; the odds of delirium and loss of independence are increased more than four- and five-fold, respectively. Care of the older person with frailty presenting for emergency surgery requires individualised and evidence-based care given the high-risk and complex nature of their presentations. Before surgery, frailty should be assessed using a multidimensional frailty instrument (most likely the Clinical Frailty Scale), and all members of the peri-operative team should be aware of each patient's frailty status. When frailty is present, pre-operative care should focus on documenting and communicating individualised risk, considering advanced care directives and engaging shared decision-making when feasible. Shared multidisciplinary care should be initiated. Peri-operatively, analgesia that avoids polypharmacy should be provided, along with delirium prevention strategies and consideration of postoperative care in a monitored environment. After the acute surgical episode, transition out of hospital requires that adequate support be in place, along with clear discharge instructions, and review of new and existing prescription medications. Advanced care directives should be reviewed or initiated in case of readmission. Overall, substantial knowledge gaps about the optimal peri-operative care of older people with frailty must be addressed through robust, patient-oriented research.

Epidural Analgesia and Postoperative Complications in Colorectal Cancer Surgery. An Observational Registry-based Study

BACKGROUND

In colorectal cancer, surgical resection is fundamental for curative treatment. Epidural analgesia mitigates the perioperative physiologic stress response caused by surgery, and reduction in perioperative stress may reduce postoperative complications. Nevertheless, epidural analgesia also causes hypotension and lower limb motor weakness that can impair postoperative recovery. Here, we aimed to assess the association between epidural analgesia and postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery 2008-2018 in Denmark in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database and obtained anaesthesia data from the Danish Anaesthesia Database. The Danish National Prescription Registry was used to obtain data on prescriptions filled preoperatively reflecting current comorbidities. Databases were linked using the Danish Central Person Registry number and the operation day. Patients were classified according to preoperative insertion of an epidural catheter for analgesia. Confounders were adjusted by propensity score matching. Logistic regression was used to compute effect estimates of epidural analgesia on postoperative complications.

RESULTS

We identified 19932 individuals undergoing colorectal cancer surgery with available anaesthesia data. Propensity score matching yielded 5691 individuals in each group with balanced preoperative covariates. In the epidural analgesia group 1400 (24.6%) experienced complications compared with 1453 (25.5%) without epidural analgesia. We found no statistically significant association between epidural use and postoperative complications (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04).

CONCLUSION

In total, in this observational study based on Danish registries, we found no association between epidural analgesia and postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery.