Intensive care medicine · 2024
Frailty, Outcomes, Recovery and Care Steps of Critically Ill Patients (FORECAST): a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Muscedere John, Bagshaw Sean M, Kho Michelle, Mehta Sangeeta, Cook Deborah J, Boyd J Gordon, Sibley Stephanie, Wang Han T, Archambault Patrick M, Albert Martin, Rewa Oleksa G, Ball Ian, Norman Patrick A, Day Andrew G, Hunt Miranda, Loubani Osama, Mele Tina, Sarti Aimee J, Shahin Jason, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Frailty is common in critically ill patients but the timing and optimal method of frailty ascertainment, trajectory and relationship with care processes remain uncertain. We sought to elucidate the trajectory and care processes of frailty in critically ill patients as measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frailty Index (FI).
METHODS: This is a multi-centre prospective cohort study enrolling patients ≥ 50 years old receiving life support > 24 h. Frailty severity was assessed with a CFS, and a FI based on the elements of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) at intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital discharge and 6 months. For the primary outcome of frailty prevalence, it was a priori dichotomously defined as a CFS ≥ 5 or FI ≥ 0.2. Processes of care, adverse events were collected during ICU and ward stays while outcomes were determined for ICU, hospital, and 6 months.
RESULTS: In 687 patients, whose age (mean ± standard deviation) was 68.8 ± 9.2 years, frailty prevalence was higher when measured with the FI (CFS, FI %): ICU admission (29.8, 44.8), hospital discharge (54.6, 67.9), 6 months (34.1, 42.6). Compared to ICU admission, aggregate frailty severity increased to hospital discharge but improved by 6 months; individually, CFS and FI were higher in 45.3% and 50.6% patients, respectively at 6 months. Compared to hospital discharge, 18.7% (CFS) and 20% (FI) were higher at 6 months. Mortality was higher in frail patients. Processes of care and adverse events were similar except for worse ICU/ward mobility and more frequent delirium in frail patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Frailty severity was dynamic, can be measured during recovery from critical illness using the CFS and FI which were both associated with worse outcomes. Although the CFS is a global measure, a CGA FI based may have advantages of being able to measure frailty levels, identify deficits, and potential targets for intervention.
METHODS: This is a multi-centre prospective cohort study enrolling patients ≥ 50 years old receiving life support > 24 h. Frailty severity was assessed with a CFS, and a FI based on the elements of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) at intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital discharge and 6 months. For the primary outcome of frailty prevalence, it was a priori dichotomously defined as a CFS ≥ 5 or FI ≥ 0.2. Processes of care, adverse events were collected during ICU and ward stays while outcomes were determined for ICU, hospital, and 6 months.
RESULTS: In 687 patients, whose age (mean ± standard deviation) was 68.8 ± 9.2 years, frailty prevalence was higher when measured with the FI (CFS, FI %): ICU admission (29.8, 44.8), hospital discharge (54.6, 67.9), 6 months (34.1, 42.6). Compared to ICU admission, aggregate frailty severity increased to hospital discharge but improved by 6 months; individually, CFS and FI were higher in 45.3% and 50.6% patients, respectively at 6 months. Compared to hospital discharge, 18.7% (CFS) and 20% (FI) were higher at 6 months. Mortality was higher in frail patients. Processes of care and adverse events were similar except for worse ICU/ward mobility and more frequent delirium in frail patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Frailty severity was dynamic, can be measured during recovery from critical illness using the CFS and FI which were both associated with worse outcomes. Although the CFS is a global measure, a CGA FI based may have advantages of being able to measure frailty levels, identify deficits, and potential targets for intervention.