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
 · 
189 Views
  • Source
    The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 04/2014; 76(4):1151-6.
  • [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; · 4.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are often active in patients with multiple comorbidities and a short natural life expectancy, but limited information exists as to how often these patients undergo high-risk operations and of the perioperative outcomes in this population. Methods. Using comprehensive inpatient administrative data from the Public Discharge Data file (years 2005 through 2010) of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, which includes a dedicated variable recording DNR status, we identified cohorts of DNR patients who underwent major cardiac or thoracic operations and compared themto age- and procedure-matched comparison cohorts. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results. DNR status was not uncommon in cardiac (n = 2,678, 1.1% of all admissions for cardiac surgery, age 71.6 ± 15.9 years) and thoracic (n = 3,129, 3.7% of all admissions for thoracic surgery, age 73.8 ± 13.6 years) surgical patient populations. Relative to controls, patients who were DNR experienced significantly greater inhospital mortality after cardiac (37.5% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.0001 and thoracic (25.4% vs. 6.4%) operations. DNR status remained an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality onmultivariate analysis after adjustment for baseline and comorbid conditions in both the cardiac (OR 4.78, 95% confidence interval 4.21-5.41, p < 0.0001) and thoracic (OR 6.11, 95% confidence interval 5.37-6.94, p < 0.0001) cohorts. Conclusions. DNR status is associated with worse outcomes of cardiothoracic surgery even when controlling for age, race, insurance status, and serious comorbid disease. DNR status appears to be a marker of substantial perioperative risk, and may warrant substantial consideration when framing discussions of surgical risk and benefit, resource utilization, and biomedical ethics surrounding end-of-life care.
    PeerJ. 01/2014; 2:e245.

Similar Publications