Frailty and long-term outcomes following critical illness: A population-level cohort study

Does the level of mobility on ICU discharge impact post-ICU outcomes? A retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

Mobilisation is a common intervention in Intensive Care (ICU). However, few studies have explored the relationship between mobility levels and outcomes. This study assessed the association of the level of mobility on ICU discharge with discharge destination from the hospital and hospital length of stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from 522 patients admitted to a single UK general ICU who were ventilated for ≥5 days was performed. The level of mobility was assessed using the Manchester Mobility Score (MMS). Multivariable regression analysed demographic and clinical variables for the independence of association with discharge destination and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

MMS ≥5 on ICU discharge was independently associated with discharge destination and hospital LOS (p < 0.001). Patients achieving MMS ≥5 on ICU discharge were more likely to be discharged home (OR 3.86 95% CI 2.1 to 6.9, p < 0.001), and had an 11.8 day shorter hospital LOS (95% CI -17.6 to -6.1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to step transfer to a chair (MMS ≥5) before ICU discharge was independently associated with discharge to usual residence and hospital LOS, irrespective of preadmission morbidity. Increasing the level of patient mobility at ICU discharge should be a key focus of rehabilitation interventions.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the FRAIL scale for critically ill patients in Spain

AIM

To translate and culturally adapt the FRAIL scale into Spanish and perform a preliminary test of diagnostic accuracy in patients admitted to intensive care units.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional diagnostic study.

METHODS

Five intensive care units (ICU) in Spain were participated. Stage 1: Three native Spanish-speaking bilingual translators familiar with the field of critical care translated the scale from English into Spanish. Stage 2: Three native English-speaking bilingual translators familiar with critical care medicine. Stage 3: Authors of the original scale compared the English original and back-translated versions of the scale. Stage 4: Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the comprehension and relevance of each of the items of the Spanish version in 30 patients of 3 different age ranges (<50, 50-65 and >65 years).

RESULTS

The FRAIL scale was translated and adapted cross-culturally for patients admitted to intensive care units in Spain. The process consisted of four stages: translation, back translation, comparison and pilot test. There was good correspondence between the original scale and the Spanish version in 100% of the items. The participating patients assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of each of the items of the first Spanish version. The relevance of some of the items scored low when the scale was used in patients younger than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We have cross-culturally adapted the FRAIL scale, originally in English, to Spanish for its use in the critical care medical setting in Spanish-speaking countries.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONALS

Physicians and nurses can apply the new scale to all patients admitted to the intensive care units. Nursing care can be adapted according to frailty, trying to reduce the side effects of admission to these units for the most fragile patients.

REPORTING METHOD

The manuscript's authors have adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines, using the COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

In a pilot clinical study, we applied the first version of the FRAIL-Spain scale to intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of the five items of the first Spanish version. Relevance was assessed using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no relevance) to 4 (high relevance), and comprehensibility was assessed as poor, acceptable or good. Each health professional applied the scale to three patients (total number of patients = 30) of three different age ranges (<50, 50-65 and >65 years) and recorded the time of application of the scale to each patient. Although the frailty scales were initially created by geriatricians to be applied to the elders, there is little experience with their application in critically ill patients of any age. Therefore, more information is needed to determine the relevance of using this scale in critical care patients. In this pilot study, we considered that nurses and critical care physicians should evaluate frailty using this adapted scale in adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Very Elderly Patients Admitted to Intensive Care: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To characterize and compare trends in ICU admission, hospital outcomes, and resource utilization for critically ill very elderly patients (≥ 80 yr old) compared with the younger cohort (16-79 yr old).

DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

SETTING

One-hundred ninety-four ICUs contributing data to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation Adult Patient Database between January 2006 and December 2018.

PATIENTS

Adult (≥ 16 yr) patients admitted to Australian and New Zealand ICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Very elderly patients with a mean ± sd age of 84.8 ± 3.7 years accounted for 14.8% (232,582/1,568,959) of all adult ICU admissions. They had higher comorbid disease burden and illness severity scores compared with the younger cohort. Hospital (15.4% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001) and ICU mortality (8.5% vs 5.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in the very elderly. They stayed fewer days in ICU, but longer in hospital and had more ICU readmissions. Among survivors, a lower proportion of very elderly was discharged home (65.2% vs 82.4%, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion was discharged to chronic care/nursing home facilities (20.1% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001). Although there was no change in the proportion of very elderly ICU admissions over the study period, they showed a greater decline in risk-adjusted mortality (6.3% [95% CI, 5.9%-6.7%] vs 4.0% [95% CI, 3.7%-4.2%] relative reduction per year, p < 0.001) compared with the younger cohort. The mortality of very elderly unplanned ICU admissions improved faster than the younger cohort ( p < 0.001), whereas improvements in mortality among elective surgical ICU admissions were similar in both groups ( p = 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of ICU admissions greater than or equal to 80 years old did not change over the 13-year study period. Although their mortality was higher, they showed improved survivorship over time, especially in the unplanned ICU admission subgroup. A higher proportion of survivors were discharged to chronic care facilities.

Using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score to assess mortality risk in older medical patients admitted to the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Prognostic information at the time of hospital discharge can help guide goals-of-care discussions for future care. We sought to assess the association between the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), which may highlight patients' risk of adverse outcomes at the time of hospital discharge, and in-hospital death among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 12 months of a previous hospital discharge.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study that included patients aged 75 years or older admitted at least twice over a 12-month period to the general medicine service at 7 academic centres and large community-based teaching hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, from Apr. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2019. The HFRS (categorized as low, moderate or high frailty risk) was calculated at the time of discharge from the first hospital admission. Outcomes included ICU admission and death during the second hospital admission.

RESULTS

The cohort included 22 178 patients, of whom 1767 (8.0%) were categorized as having high frailty risk, 9464 (42.7%) as having moderate frailty risk, and 10 947 (49.4%) as having low frailty risk. One hundred patients (5.7%) with high frailty risk were admitted to the ICU, compared to 566 (6.0%) of those with moderate risk and 790 (7.2%) of those with low risk. After adjustment for age, sex, hospital, day of admission, time of admission and Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, the odds of ICU admission were not significantly different for patients with high (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.23) or moderate (adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) frailty risk compared to those with low frailty risk. Among patients admitted to the ICU, 75 (75.0%) of those with high frailty risk died, compared to 317 (56.0%) of those with moderate risk and 416 (52.7%) of those with low risk. After multivariable adjustment, the risk of death after ICU admission was higher for patients with high frailty risk than for those with low frailty risk (adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.77 to 4.77).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients readmitted to hospital within 12 months, patients with high frailty risk were similarly likely as those with lower frailty risk to be admitted to the ICU but were more likely to die if admitted to ICU. The HFRS at hospital discharge can inform prognosis, which can help guide discussions for preferences for ICU care during future hospital stays.

Progression of frailty as measured by a cumulative deficit index: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. There is a paucity of literature on frailty progression defined by a cumulative deficit model among community dwelling older people. The objective of this review was to synthesise evidence on these changes in health and mortality among community-dwelling older people.

METHODS

Six databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycInfo, Web of Science) and a clinical trials registry were searched in July 2021. The inclusion criteria were studies using a frailty index and providing information on transition between frailty states or to death in community-dwelling older people aged ≥ 50. Exclusion criteria were studies examining specific health conditions, conference abstracts and non-English studies. To standardise the follow-up period and facilitate comparison, we converted the transition probabilities to annual transition rates.

RESULTS

Two reviewers independently screened 5078 studies and 61 studies were included for analysis. Of these, only three used the same frailty state cut-points to facilitate cross-cohort comparison. This review found that frailty tends to increase with time, people who are frail at baseline have greater likelihood to progress in frailty and die, and the main factor that accelerates frailty progression is age. Other risk factors for progression are having chronic disease, smoking, obesity, low-income or/and low-education levels. A frailty index is an accurate predictor of adverse outcomes and death.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review demonstrated that worsening in frailty was a common frailty transition, and older people who are frail at baseline are more likely to die. A frailty index has significant power to predict adverse health outcomes. It is a useful tool for within-cohort comparison but there are challenges comparing different cohorts due to dependence of frailty progression on age and differences in how frailty index is defined and measured.

The Association of Frailty With Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure Treated With Noninvasive Ventilation

The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and impact of frailty on mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). This was a single-center, prospective study of patients who developed ARF (irrespective of etiology) and were treated with NIV support. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). We modeled the relationship of CFS with one-year mortality using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for other clinical and demographic characteristics. Of the 166 patients enrolled, 48% had moderate to severe frailty. These patients were more likely to be female (67% versus 33%) and on oxygen therapy at home (46% versus 28%). The median CFS score was 5 (interquartile range (IQR): 5-6). Moderate to severe frailty was associated with a 60% higher risk of one-year mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-2.31). Frailty assessment may identify patients in need of ventilatory support who are at increased risk of mortality and may be an important factor to consider when discussing goals of care in this vulnerable population.