Frailty trajectories in ICU survivors: A comparison between the clinical frailty scale and the Tilburg frailty Indicator and association with 1 year mortality
Rattachement africain : it, be. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE: To test the agreement of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), their association with 3, 6 months and 1-year mortality and the trajectory of frailty in a mixed population of ICU survivors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study on ICU survivors ≥18 years old with an ICU stay >72 h. For each patient, sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. Frailty was assessed during ICU stay and at 3, 6, 12 months after ICU discharge, through both CFS and TFI. RESULTS: 124 patients with a mean age of 66 years old were enrolled. The baseline prevalence of frailty was 15.3% by CFS and 44.4% by TFI. Baseline CFS and TFI correlated but showed low agreement (Cohen's K = 0.23, p < 0.001). Baseline CFS score, but not TFI, was significantly associated to 1 year mortality. Moreover, CFS score during the follow-up was independently associated 1-year mortality (OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.18-1.73). CONCLUSIONS: CFS and TFI identify different populations of frail ICU survivors. Frail patients before ICU according to CFS have a significantly higher mortality after ICU discharge. The CFS during follow-up is an independent negative prognostic factor of long-term mortality in the ICU population.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Frailty trajectories in ICU survivors: A comparison between the clinical frailty scale and the Tilburg frailty Indicator and association with 1 year mortality
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2023
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.