The Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality prediction of old acutely admitted intensive care patients: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data.
Elderly
Frailty
Individual patient-level data meta-analysis
Intensive care medicine
Outcome prediction
Systematic review
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2023
03 May 2023
Historique:
received:
27
12
2022
accepted:
20
04
2023
medline:
3
5
2023
pubmed:
3
5
2023
entrez:
3
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II). 12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS ≥ 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (≥ 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25-1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26-1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4-5, 6, and ≥ 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1-3. Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its "continuum" better and predict ICU outcome more accurately. Open Science Framework (OSF: https://osf.io/8buwk/ ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU).
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II).
RESULTS
RESULTS
12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS ≥ 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (≥ 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25-1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26-1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4-5, 6, and ≥ 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1-3.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its "continuum" better and predict ICU outcome more accurately.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Open Science Framework (OSF: https://osf.io/8buwk/ ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37133796
doi: 10.1186/s13613-023-01132-x
pii: 10.1186/s13613-023-01132-x
pmc: PMC10155148
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
37Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
CMAJ. 2014 Feb 4;186(2):E95-102
pubmed: 24277703
J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:67-72
pubmed: 29705407
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Jan;46(1):57-69
pubmed: 31784798
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Dec;43(12):1820-1828
pubmed: 28936626
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020 Nov;37(11):1058-1065
pubmed: 31977631
Crit Care. 2017 May 16;21(1):109
pubmed: 28506243
J Crit Care. 2020 Feb;55:79-85
pubmed: 31715535
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 19;158(4):280-6
pubmed: 23420236
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Jul 09;8:697884
pubmed: 34307423
Crit Care Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):132-8
pubmed: 22001580
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020 Oct 2;117(40):668-673
pubmed: 33357351
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 May 23;36:100896
pubmed: 34036252
Intensive Care Med. 2022 Mar;48(3):343-351
pubmed: 35119497
Crit Care. 2016 Jun 06;20(1):175
pubmed: 27263535
Crit Care. 2021 Apr 19;25(1):149
pubmed: 33874987
J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(5):702-709
pubmed: 33949641
J Intensive Care Soc. 2020 May;21(2):124-133
pubmed: 32489408
Age Ageing. 2021 Jun 28;50(4):1406-1411
pubmed: 33605412
Can Geriatr J. 2020 Sep 01;23(3):235-241
pubmed: 32904800
CMAJ. 2005 Aug 30;173(5):489-95
pubmed: 16129869
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Mar 17;21(1):186
pubmed: 33731018
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021 Mar-Apr;93:104324
pubmed: 33352430
Scand J Caring Sci. 2022 Dec;36(4):1083-1093
pubmed: 34075609
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013 Jul;57(6):698-703
pubmed: 23373851
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Sep;69(9):2419-2429
pubmed: 34048599
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Dec;35(12):1505-1512
pubmed: 31607212
Crit Care. 2021 Sep 23;25(1):344
pubmed: 34556171
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Nov;41(11):1911-20
pubmed: 26306719
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 22;11(3):e047051
pubmed: 33753447
Can Geriatr J. 2020 Sep 01;23(3):210-215
pubmed: 32904824
Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29
pubmed: 3928249
Ann Intensive Care. 2021 Feb 3;11(1):22
pubmed: 33534010
Can J Anaesth. 2019 Nov;66(11):1310-1319
pubmed: 31144259
Crit Care Med. 2008 Apr;36(4):1311-22
pubmed: 18379260
Chest. 2021 Oct;160(4):1292-1303
pubmed: 34089741
Br J Anaesth. 2021 Mar;126(3):e108-e110
pubmed: 33358046
Crit Care Med. 2020 Sep;48(9):1271-1279
pubmed: 32568858
J Crit Care. 2019 Aug;52:193-199
pubmed: 31096100
Crit Care. 2009;13(2):R45
pubmed: 19335921
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Apr;38(4):620-6
pubmed: 22354500
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Sep;43(9):1319-1328
pubmed: 28238055
Intensive Care Med. 2014 May;40(5):674-82
pubmed: 24651884
JAMA. 1993 Dec 22-29;270(24):2957-63
pubmed: 8254858
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Intensive Care. 2020 Sep 29;8:75
pubmed: 33005426
Diagn Progn Res. 2019 Mar 07;3:5
pubmed: 31093575
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Aug;30(8):1586-93
pubmed: 14991099
Ann Transl Med. 2018 Apr;6(7):111
pubmed: 29955571
Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2021 Jan;99(1):41-48
pubmed: 32507310
Lancet. 2019 Oct 12;394(10206):1376-1386
pubmed: 31609229
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 May;69(5):1116-1127
pubmed: 33818759
Age Ageing. 2013 Jul;42(4):416-23
pubmed: 23739047