Article

Are the frail destined to fail? Frailty index as predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly.

Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA.
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 06/2012; 72(6):1526-30; discussion 1530-1. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182542fab
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT America's aging population has led to an increase in the number of elderly patients necessitating emergency general surgery. Previous studies have demonstrated that increased frailty is a predictor of outcomes in medicine and surgical patients. We hypothesized that use of a modification of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index would be a predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients older than 60 years undergoing emergency general surgery.
Data were obtained from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files database in compliance with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data Use Agreement. We selected all emergency cases in patients older than 60 years performed by general surgeons from 2005 to 2009. The effect of increasing frailty on multiple outcomes including wound infection, wound occurrence, any infection, any occurrence, and mortality was then evaluated.
Total sample size was 35,334 patients. As the modified frailty index increased, associated increases occurred in wound infection, wound occurrence, any infection, any occurrence, and mortality. Logistic regression of multiple variables demonstrated that the frailty index was associated with increased mortality with an odds ratio of 11.70 (p < 0.001).
Frailty index is an important predictive variable in emergency general surgery patients older than 60 years. The modified frailty index can be used to evaluate risk of both morbidity and mortality in these patients. Frailty index will be a valuable preoperative risk assessment tool for the acute care surgeon. Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, level II.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
148 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background While living with others has been associated with improved functional outcome after acute stroke, it is unclear if this affects adherence to stroke prevention measures.AimsWe examined the relationship between living arrangements and adherence to antiplatelet therapy assignment and participation status in an international randomized trial for secondary stroke prevention.Method Antiplatelet therapy adherence, trial retention outcomes, and baseline characteristics for participants enrolled in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes study were compared between those who lived alone vs. with others (n = 2374). Participant status at end-of-trial was categorized into (1) on assigned antiplatelet, (2) off assigned antiplatelet by participant request, or (3) participant withdrew consent/lost to follow-up. Multivariable multivariate logistic regression was used to identify patient features at entry predictive of participant status at trial end.ResultsLiving arrangement, alone vs. with other(s), was not significantly associated with participant status. Participants enrolled in the United States/Canada (odds ratio 3·1, confidence intervals 2·0–5·0, vs. Latin America), taking more (7+) prescription medications (odds ratio 1·7, confidence intervals 1·1–2·7, vs. 0–2 medications), and scoring lower on the Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (odds ratio 1·3, confidence intervals 1·1–1·5, per 10 points) were more likely to withdraw or become lost to follow-up in the study vs. completing the study on assigned antiplatelet therapy. Participants enrolled in the United States/Canada (odds ratio 5·0, confidence intervals 2·4–10·0, vs. Latin America) and taking fewer (0–2) medications (odds ratio 1·9, confidence intervals 1·2–3·1 vs. 3–6 medications) were more likely to request discontinuation of assigned antiplatelet medication vs. completing the study.Conclusion Living with others was not independently predictive of protocol adherence in this cohort. Number of medications and Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale score may be more indicative of likelihood of trial participation and acceptance of long-term antiplatelet regimen.
    International Journal of Stroke 04/2014; · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To identify those patients with gynecologic cancers and intestinal perforation in whom conservative management may be appropriate. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all gynecologic oncology patients with intestinal perforation at our institution between 1995 and 2011. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze factors influencing survival. RESULTS: Forty-three patients met the study criteria. The mean age was 59years (range: 38-82years). A large number of patients had peritoneal carcinomatosis and history of bowel obstruction. Surgery was performed in 28 patients, and 15 were managed conservatively. Overall mortality at 1, 3, 6, and 12months was 26%, 40%, 47%, and 59%, respectively. Only cancer burden at the time of perforation was independently predictive of mortality. Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, distant metastasis, or both were at 42 times higher risk of death than those with no evidence of disease (95% CI: 3.28-639.83), and at 7 times higher risk of death than those with microscopic/localized disease (95% CI: 1.77-29.94). When adjusted for the extent of disease spread, management approach (conservative vs. surgical) was not a significant predictor of survival (p≥0.05). The length of hospital stay (19days vs. 7days) and the complication rate (75% vs. 26.7%) were significantly higher in the surgical group than in the non-surgical group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who develop intestinal perforation in the setting of widely metastatic disease have a particularly poor prognosis. Aggressive surgical management is unlikely to benefit such patients and further impairs their quality of life.
    Gynecologic Oncology 03/2013; · 3.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although frailty has recently been examined in various populations as a predictor of morbidity and mortality, its effect on thoracic aortic surgery outcomes has not been studied. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the role of frailty in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing proximal aortic replacement surgery. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed for all patients undergoing elective and nonelective proximal aortic operations (root, ascending aorta, and/or arch) at a single-referral institution from June 2005 to December 2012. A total of 581 patients underwent proximal aortic surgery, of whom 574 (98.8%) were included in the present analysis; 7 were excluded because of incomplete data. Frailty was evaluated using an index consisting of age >70 years, body mass index <18.5 kg/m(2), anemia, history of stroke, hypoalbuminemia, and total psoas volume in the bottom quartile of the population. One point was given for each criterion met to determine a frailty score of 0 to 6. Frailty was defined as a score of ≥2. Risk models for length of stay >14 days, discharge to other than home, 30-day composite major morbidity, 30-day composite major morbidity/mortality, and 30-day and 1-year mortality were calculated using multivariate regression modeling. Of the 574 patients, 148 (25.7%) were defined as frail (frailty score ≥2). The unadjusted 30-day/in-hospital and long-term outcomes were significantly worse for the frail versus nonfrail patients in all but 1 of the outcomes analyzed; no difference was found in the 30-day readmission rates between the 2 groups. In the multivariate model, a frailty score of ≥2 was associated with discharge to other than home and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Frailty, as defined using a 6-component frailty index, can serve as an independent predictor of discharge disposition and early and late mortality risk in patients undergoing proximal aortic surgery. These frailty markers, all of which are easily assessed preoperatively, could provide valuable information for patient counseling and risk stratification before proximal aortic replacement.
    The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 10/2013; · 3.41 Impact Factor