Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparison of the predictive ability of clinical frailty scale and hospital frailty risk score to determine long-term survival in critically ill patients: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.|
|Publication Title:||Critical Care|
|Abstract:||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.|
|Description:||Includes data from WHCG.|
|Internal ID Number:||01939|
|Health Subject:||1-YEAR SURVIVAL|
CLINICAL FRAILTY SCALE
HOSPITAL FRAILTY RISK SCORE
|Appears in Collections:||Research Output|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.