TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the predictive ability of clinical frailty scale and hospital frailty risk score to determine long-term survival in critically ill patients
T2 - a multicentre retrospective cohort study
AU - Subramaniam, Ashwin
AU - Ueno, Ryo
AU - Tiruvoipati, Ravindranath
AU - Srikanth, Velandai
AU - Bailey, Michael
AU - Pilcher, David
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Mr Cameron Green, Mr Brendan McAlister, and Dr Scott May of the Frailtrail team from the Bendigo Datathon 2018. The authors and the ANZICS CORE management committee would like to thank clinicians, data collectors and researchers at the following contributing sites: Alfred Hospital, Austin Hospital, Bendigo Health Care Group, Box Hill Hospital, Central Gippsland Health Service, Dandenong Hospital, Frankston Hospital, Goulburn Valley Health, Latrobe Regional Hospital, Monash Medical Centre-Clayton Campus, Northeast Health Wangaratta, South West Healthcare (Warrnambool), University Hospital Geelong, Western District Health Service (Hamilton), and Wimmera Health Care Group (Horsham).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most commonly used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) was recently proposed for the quantification of frailty. We aimed to compare the HFRS with the CFS in critically ill patients in predicting long-term survival up to one year following ICU admission. Methods: In this retrospective multicentre cohort study from 16 public ICUs in the state of Victoria, Australia between 1st January 2017 and 30th June 2018, ICU admission episodes listed in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database registry with a documented CFS, which had been linked with the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index were examined. The HFRS was calculated for each patient using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that represented pre-existing conditions at the time of index hospital admission. Descriptive methods, Cox proportional hazards and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to investigate the association between each frailty score and long-term survival up to 1 year, after adjusting for confounders including sex and baseline severity of illness on admission to ICU (Australia New Zealand risk-of-death, ANZROD). Results: 7001 ICU patients with both frailty measures were analysed. The overall median (IQR) age was 63.7 (49.1–74.0) years; 59.5% (n = 4166) were male; the median (IQR) APACHE II score 14 (10–20). Almost half (46.7%, n = 3266) were mechanically ventilated. The hospital mortality was 9.5% (n = 642) and 1-year mortality was 14.4% (n = 1005). HFRS correlated weakly with CFS (Spearman’s rho 0.13 (95% CI 0.10–0.15) and had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.12, 95% CI 0.10–0.15). Both frailty measures predicted 1-year survival after adjusting for confounders, CFS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21–1.31) and HFRS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15). The CFS had better discrimination of 1-year mortality than HFRS (AUROC 0.66 vs 0.63 p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Both HFRS and CFS independently predicted up to 1-year survival following an ICU admission with moderate discrimination. The CFS was a better predictor of 1-year survival than the HFRS.
AB - Background: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most commonly used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) was recently proposed for the quantification of frailty. We aimed to compare the HFRS with the CFS in critically ill patients in predicting long-term survival up to one year following ICU admission. Methods: In this retrospective multicentre cohort study from 16 public ICUs in the state of Victoria, Australia between 1st January 2017 and 30th June 2018, ICU admission episodes listed in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database registry with a documented CFS, which had been linked with the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index were examined. The HFRS was calculated for each patient using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that represented pre-existing conditions at the time of index hospital admission. Descriptive methods, Cox proportional hazards and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to investigate the association between each frailty score and long-term survival up to 1 year, after adjusting for confounders including sex and baseline severity of illness on admission to ICU (Australia New Zealand risk-of-death, ANZROD). Results: 7001 ICU patients with both frailty measures were analysed. The overall median (IQR) age was 63.7 (49.1–74.0) years; 59.5% (n = 4166) were male; the median (IQR) APACHE II score 14 (10–20). Almost half (46.7%, n = 3266) were mechanically ventilated. The hospital mortality was 9.5% (n = 642) and 1-year mortality was 14.4% (n = 1005). HFRS correlated weakly with CFS (Spearman’s rho 0.13 (95% CI 0.10–0.15) and had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.12, 95% CI 0.10–0.15). Both frailty measures predicted 1-year survival after adjusting for confounders, CFS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21–1.31) and HFRS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15). The CFS had better discrimination of 1-year mortality than HFRS (AUROC 0.66 vs 0.63 p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Both HFRS and CFS independently predicted up to 1-year survival following an ICU admission with moderate discrimination. The CFS was a better predictor of 1-year survival than the HFRS.
KW - 1-year survival
KW - CFS
KW - Clinical frailty scale
KW - Frailty
KW - HFRS
KW - Hospital frailty risk score
KW - Long-term outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129269907&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13054-022-03987-1
DO - 10.1186/s13054-022-03987-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 35505435
AN - SCOPUS:85129269907
SN - 1364-8535
VL - 26
JO - Critical Care
JF - Critical Care
IS - 1
M1 - 121
ER -