Assessing the usefulness and validity of frailty markers in critically ill adults

Aluko A. Hope, S. J. Hsieh, Alex Petti, Mariana Hurtado-Sbordoni, Joe Verghese, Michelle Ng Gong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale: Identifying frailty by the presence of a critical number of frailty markers has been difficult to operationalize in the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients often cannot complete performance measures or answer complex questions. Objectives: To assess the construct and predictive validity of a questionnaire-based approach to identifying frailty in adult ICU patients. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults admitted to a medical or surgical ICU at one of two hospitals in New York. We asked patients or surrogates about demographic information, frailty markers, and prehospital disability status. ICU physicians completed the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a judgmentbased frailty assessment tool. We examined the relationship between individual frailty markers, CFS, and demographic correlates of frailty such as age, prehospital living arrangement, and prehospital disability. We assessed the predictive validity of possible frailty phenotypes, using hospital and 6-month outcomes. Results: Among 95 study participants (mean age [SD], 57.1 [17.5] yr), 80% reported one or more of seven frailty markers (median [interquartile range], 3 [1-4]). The most common frailty markers were impaired mobility (60%), impaired physical activity (60%), and decreased strength (44.2%). Patients with more frailty markers were older (mean age [SD] of those with at least three frailty markers: 62.3 [17.7] vs. 51.6 [15.8] yr; P,0.001) comparedwith those with fewer than three markers, and were more likely to be judged frail by CFS (57.0 vs. 19.6%; P = 0.001), although of the 49 patients with three or more frailty markers, CFS identified 36.7% as not frail. Malnutrition and fatigue or low energy were not significantly associated with other frailty correlates. Survivors with more frailty markersweremore likely to die or report increased disability at followup. Inmultivariatemodels, a frailty phenotype defined as at least three of the seven frailty markers performed similarly to CFS in predicting death or increased disability at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 3.3 [1.2-9.0] vs. 3.8 [1.2-11.7]) for CFS. Conclusions: Asking patients or surrogates about frailty markers may be a valid approach to identifying critically ill adults with a frailty phenotype associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Larger studies measuring frailty markers may provide insight into factors that impact short- and long-term outcomes after ICU admission.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)952-959
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of the American Thoracic Society
Volume14
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017

Fingerprint

Critical Illness
Intensive Care Units
Phenotype
Biomarkers
Demography
Critical Care
Malnutrition
Observational Studies
Fatigue
Survivors
Cohort Studies
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Exercise
Physicians

Keywords

  • Aging
  • Critical illness
  • Frail elderly
  • Outcome assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Assessing the usefulness and validity of frailty markers in critically ill adults. / Hope, Aluko A.; Hsieh, S. J.; Petti, Alex; Hurtado-Sbordoni, Mariana; Verghese, Joe; Gong, Michelle Ng.

In: Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Vol. 14, No. 6, 01.06.2017, p. 952-959.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dd9a3f034cae429390b814112873252a,
title = "Assessing the usefulness and validity of frailty markers in critically ill adults",
abstract = "Rationale: Identifying frailty by the presence of a critical number of frailty markers has been difficult to operationalize in the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients often cannot complete performance measures or answer complex questions. Objectives: To assess the construct and predictive validity of a questionnaire-based approach to identifying frailty in adult ICU patients. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults admitted to a medical or surgical ICU at one of two hospitals in New York. We asked patients or surrogates about demographic information, frailty markers, and prehospital disability status. ICU physicians completed the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a judgmentbased frailty assessment tool. We examined the relationship between individual frailty markers, CFS, and demographic correlates of frailty such as age, prehospital living arrangement, and prehospital disability. We assessed the predictive validity of possible frailty phenotypes, using hospital and 6-month outcomes. Results: Among 95 study participants (mean age [SD], 57.1 [17.5] yr), 80{\%} reported one or more of seven frailty markers (median [interquartile range], 3 [1-4]). The most common frailty markers were impaired mobility (60{\%}), impaired physical activity (60{\%}), and decreased strength (44.2{\%}). Patients with more frailty markers were older (mean age [SD] of those with at least three frailty markers: 62.3 [17.7] vs. 51.6 [15.8] yr; P,0.001) comparedwith those with fewer than three markers, and were more likely to be judged frail by CFS (57.0 vs. 19.6{\%}; P = 0.001), although of the 49 patients with three or more frailty markers, CFS identified 36.7{\%} as not frail. Malnutrition and fatigue or low energy were not significantly associated with other frailty correlates. Survivors with more frailty markersweremore likely to die or report increased disability at followup. Inmultivariatemodels, a frailty phenotype defined as at least three of the seven frailty markers performed similarly to CFS in predicting death or increased disability at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [95{\%} confidence interval], 3.3 [1.2-9.0] vs. 3.8 [1.2-11.7]) for CFS. Conclusions: Asking patients or surrogates about frailty markers may be a valid approach to identifying critically ill adults with a frailty phenotype associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Larger studies measuring frailty markers may provide insight into factors that impact short- and long-term outcomes after ICU admission.",
keywords = "Aging, Critical illness, Frail elderly, Outcome assessment",
author = "Hope, {Aluko A.} and Hsieh, {S. J.} and Alex Petti and Mariana Hurtado-Sbordoni and Joe Verghese and Gong, {Michelle Ng}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1513/AnnalsATS.201607-538OC",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "952--959",
journal = "Annals of the American Thoracic Society",
issn = "2325-6621",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the usefulness and validity of frailty markers in critically ill adults

AU - Hope, Aluko A.

AU - Hsieh, S. J.

AU - Petti, Alex

AU - Hurtado-Sbordoni, Mariana

AU - Verghese, Joe

AU - Gong, Michelle Ng

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Rationale: Identifying frailty by the presence of a critical number of frailty markers has been difficult to operationalize in the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients often cannot complete performance measures or answer complex questions. Objectives: To assess the construct and predictive validity of a questionnaire-based approach to identifying frailty in adult ICU patients. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults admitted to a medical or surgical ICU at one of two hospitals in New York. We asked patients or surrogates about demographic information, frailty markers, and prehospital disability status. ICU physicians completed the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a judgmentbased frailty assessment tool. We examined the relationship between individual frailty markers, CFS, and demographic correlates of frailty such as age, prehospital living arrangement, and prehospital disability. We assessed the predictive validity of possible frailty phenotypes, using hospital and 6-month outcomes. Results: Among 95 study participants (mean age [SD], 57.1 [17.5] yr), 80% reported one or more of seven frailty markers (median [interquartile range], 3 [1-4]). The most common frailty markers were impaired mobility (60%), impaired physical activity (60%), and decreased strength (44.2%). Patients with more frailty markers were older (mean age [SD] of those with at least three frailty markers: 62.3 [17.7] vs. 51.6 [15.8] yr; P,0.001) comparedwith those with fewer than three markers, and were more likely to be judged frail by CFS (57.0 vs. 19.6%; P = 0.001), although of the 49 patients with three or more frailty markers, CFS identified 36.7% as not frail. Malnutrition and fatigue or low energy were not significantly associated with other frailty correlates. Survivors with more frailty markersweremore likely to die or report increased disability at followup. Inmultivariatemodels, a frailty phenotype defined as at least three of the seven frailty markers performed similarly to CFS in predicting death or increased disability at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 3.3 [1.2-9.0] vs. 3.8 [1.2-11.7]) for CFS. Conclusions: Asking patients or surrogates about frailty markers may be a valid approach to identifying critically ill adults with a frailty phenotype associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Larger studies measuring frailty markers may provide insight into factors that impact short- and long-term outcomes after ICU admission.

AB - Rationale: Identifying frailty by the presence of a critical number of frailty markers has been difficult to operationalize in the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients often cannot complete performance measures or answer complex questions. Objectives: To assess the construct and predictive validity of a questionnaire-based approach to identifying frailty in adult ICU patients. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults admitted to a medical or surgical ICU at one of two hospitals in New York. We asked patients or surrogates about demographic information, frailty markers, and prehospital disability status. ICU physicians completed the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a judgmentbased frailty assessment tool. We examined the relationship between individual frailty markers, CFS, and demographic correlates of frailty such as age, prehospital living arrangement, and prehospital disability. We assessed the predictive validity of possible frailty phenotypes, using hospital and 6-month outcomes. Results: Among 95 study participants (mean age [SD], 57.1 [17.5] yr), 80% reported one or more of seven frailty markers (median [interquartile range], 3 [1-4]). The most common frailty markers were impaired mobility (60%), impaired physical activity (60%), and decreased strength (44.2%). Patients with more frailty markers were older (mean age [SD] of those with at least three frailty markers: 62.3 [17.7] vs. 51.6 [15.8] yr; P,0.001) comparedwith those with fewer than three markers, and were more likely to be judged frail by CFS (57.0 vs. 19.6%; P = 0.001), although of the 49 patients with three or more frailty markers, CFS identified 36.7% as not frail. Malnutrition and fatigue or low energy were not significantly associated with other frailty correlates. Survivors with more frailty markersweremore likely to die or report increased disability at followup. Inmultivariatemodels, a frailty phenotype defined as at least three of the seven frailty markers performed similarly to CFS in predicting death or increased disability at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 3.3 [1.2-9.0] vs. 3.8 [1.2-11.7]) for CFS. Conclusions: Asking patients or surrogates about frailty markers may be a valid approach to identifying critically ill adults with a frailty phenotype associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Larger studies measuring frailty markers may provide insight into factors that impact short- and long-term outcomes after ICU admission.

KW - Aging

KW - Critical illness

KW - Frail elderly

KW - Outcome assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020202641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020202641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201607-538OC

DO - 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201607-538OC

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 952

EP - 959

JO - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

JF - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

SN - 2325-6621

IS - 6

ER -