Association of Hospital Readmissions and Survivability With Frailty and Palliative Performance Scores Among Long-Term Care Residents

Clinical frailty and performance scale translation in palliative care: scoping review

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with advancing age and increases the risk of adverse outcomes and death. Routine assessment of frailty is becoming more common in a number of healthcare settings, but not in palliative care, where performance scales (eg, the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (AKPS)) are more commonly employed. A shared understanding of performance and frailty measures could aid interspecialty collaboration in both end-of-life care research and clinical practice.

AIMS

To identify and synthesise evidence comparing measures of performance routinely collected in palliative care with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and create a conversion chart to support interspecialty communication.

METHODS

A scoping literature review with comprehensive searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid SP, the Cochrane Library and reference lists. Eligible articles compared the CFS with the AKPS, Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Karnofsky Performance Scale or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status or compared these performance scales, in patients aged >18 in any setting.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 3124 articles. Two articles directly compared CFS to the PPS. Thirteen studies translated between different performance scores, facilitating subsequent conversion to CFS, specifically: AKPS/PPS 10/20=very severe frailty, AKPS/PPS 30=severe frailty, AKPS/PPS 40/50=moderate frailty, AKPS/PPS60=mild frailty.

CONCLUSION

We present a tool for converting between the CFS and performance measures commonly used in palliative care. A small number of studies provided evidence for the direct translation between CFS and the PPS. Therefore, more primary evidence is needed from a wider range of population settings, and performance measures to support this conversion.

Identification of frailty and sarcopenia in hospitalised older people

BACKGROUND

People with frailty and/or sarcopenia have an increased risk of negative health outcomes. However, their diagnosis is often difficult. Considering the potential value of myostatin and follistatin as biomarkers of these conditions, we aimed to compare the association between both myokines and frailty and/or sarcopenia in post-hospitalised older people. In addition, the capability of myostatin and follistatin for identifying frailty and sarcopenia was compared with physical tests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants in this cross-sectional study consisted of 84 post-hospitalised patients immediately after discharge. Participants met the following inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 70 years, score of ≥20 on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and able to stand up and walk independently for at least 4 m. Serum myostatin and follistatin concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Body measures and results from 4 physical tests (hand grip, chair stand, 8-foot timed Up and Go (8TUG) and gait speed (GS)) were also recorded. Frailty was evaluated by the Fried index, and sarcopenia by the criteria of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People.

RESULTS

Myostatin concentration was lower and follistatin concentration higher in people with frailty or sarcopenia. Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that GS and 8TUG tests had the greatest capability for identifying frailty. Myostatin was the only variable capable of identifying sarcopenia.

CONCLUSION

Myostatin may be a useful biomarker for sarcopenia in post-hospitalised older adults. However, it has a lower capability for identifying frailty than physical tests. Further studies using larger samples and these myokines together with other biomarkers are warranted.