electronic frailty index

电子脆弱指数
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:脆弱,衡量生物老化,与更糟糕的COVID-19结果有关。然而,由于COVID-19波的死亡率不同,尚不清楚我们先前为老年人开发的基于病历的电子虚弱指数(eFI)是否可用于住院COVID-19患者的风险分层.
    目的:本研究的目的是检查虚弱与死亡率的关系,重新接纳,和老年COVID-19患者的住院时间,并比较eFI与其他虚弱和合并症指标的预测准确性。
    方法:这是一项回顾性队列研究,使用斯德哥尔摩9个老年诊所的电子健康记录(EHR),瑞典,包括2020年3月至2022年3月期间收治的3,980名COVID-19患者(平均年龄81.6岁)。使用为瑞典老年患者开发的48项eFI评估虚弱,临床虚弱量表,和医院衰弱风险评分。使用Charlson合并症指数测量合并症。我们使用逻辑回归分析了住院死亡率和30天再入院,使用Cox回归的30天和6个月死亡率,和使用线性回归的停留时间。逻辑回归和Cox模型的预测准确性通过受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)和Harrell'sC统计量来评估,分别。
    结果:整个研究期间,住院死亡率从第一波的13.9%下降到最新(Omicron)波的3.6%。控制年龄和性别,eFI增加10%与住院死亡率的高风险显着相关(比值比=2.95;95%置信区间=2.42-3.62),30天死亡率(危险比[HR]=2.39;2.08-2.74),6个月死亡率(HR=2.29;2.04-2.56),住院时间较长(β系数=2.00;1.65-2.34),但不符合30天的再入院。eFI和院内死亡率之间的关联在整个浪潮中仍然强劲,即使在疫苗接种后。在所有措施中,eFI对住院患者的歧视最好(AUC=0.780),30天(哈雷尔的C=0.733),和6个月死亡率(哈雷尔C=0.719)。
    结论:基于常规收集的EHR的eFI可用于识别持续大流行期间的高危老年COVID-19患者。
    Frailty, a measure of biological aging, has been linked to worse COVID-19 outcomes. However, as the mortality differs across the COVID-19 waves, it is less clear whether a medical record-based electronic frailty index (eFI) that we have previously developed for older adults could be used for risk stratification in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
    The aim of the study was to examine the association of frailty with mortality, readmission, and length of stay in older COVID-19 patients and to compare the predictive accuracy of the eFI to other frailty and comorbidity measures.
    This was a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records (EHRs) from nine geriatric clinics in Stockholm, Sweden, comprising 3,980 COVID-19 patients (mean age 81.6 years) admitted between March 2020 and March 2022. Frailty was assessed using a 48-item eFI developed for Swedish geriatric patients, the Clinical Frailty Scale, and the Hospital Frailty Risk Score. Comorbidity was measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We analyzed in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission using logistic regression, 30-day and 6-month mortality using Cox regression, and the length of stay using linear regression. Predictive accuracy of the logistic regression and Cox models was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Harrell\'s C-statistic, respectively.
    Across the study period, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased from 13.9% in the first wave to 3.6% in the latest (Omicron) wave. Controlling for age and sex, a 10% increment in the eFI was significantly associated with higher risks of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 2.95; 95% confidence interval = 2.42-3.62), 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.39; 2.08-2.74), 6-month mortality (HR = 2.29; 2.04-2.56), and a longer length of stay (β-coefficient = 2.00; 1.65-2.34) but not with 30-day readmission. The association between the eFI and in-hospital mortality remained robust across the waves, even after the vaccination rollout. Among all measures, the eFI had the best discrimination for in-hospital (AUC = 0.780), 30-day (Harrell\'s C = 0.733), and 6-month mortality (Harrell\'s C = 0.719).
    An eFI based on routinely collected EHRs can be applied in identifying high-risk older COVID-19 patients during the continuing pandemic.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    评估电子脆弱指数(eFI)和医院脆弱风险评分(HFRS)算法对日本行政索赔数据的适用性,并评估其与长期结果的关联。
    2014-18年日本地区政府行政医疗保健和长期护理(LTC)索赔数据库的队列研究。
    计划参与者年龄≥50岁。
    我们将这两种算法应用于该队列,并评估了分数“分布以及注册人员的4年死亡率和政府支持的LTC的启动。使用Cox回归和精细灰色模型,我们评估了脆弱评分与结局之间的关联以及模型的辨别能力.
    在827,744名注册人员中,42.8%被eFI归类为合适的,31.2%轻度,17.5%中度和8.5%重度。对于HFRS,73.0%偏低,24.3%的中等风险和2.7%的高风险;36个预测因子中的35个,最初用于HFRS的109个代码中有92个在日本系统中可用。相对于最脆弱的群体,最脆弱组的死亡率风险比[95%置信区间(CI)]为2.09(1.98-2.21),对于eFI的LTC为2.45(2.28-2.63);HFRS的风险比分别为3.79(3.56-4.03)和3.31(2.87-3.82),分别。48个月时,未调整模型的受试者工作特征曲线下面积为死亡0.68,eFI为LTC为0.68,分别为0.73和0.70,对于HFRS。
    脆弱算法适用于日本系统,有助于识别长期死亡或使用LTC风险的登记者。
    To assess the applicability of Electronic Frailty Index (eFI) and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) algorithms to Japanese administrative claims data and to evaluate their association with long-term outcomes.
    A cohort study using a regional government administrative healthcare and long-term care (LTC) claims database in Japan 2014-18.
    Plan enrollees aged ≥50 years.
    We applied the two algorithms to the cohort and assessed the scores\' distributions alongside enrollees\' 4-year mortality and initiation of government-supported LTC. Using Cox regression and Fine-Gray models, we evaluated the association between frailty scores and outcomes as well as the models\' discriminatory ability.
    Among 827,744 enrollees, 42.8% were categorised by eFI as fit, 31.2% mild, 17.5% moderate and 8.5% severe. For HFRS, 73.0% were low, 24.3% intermediate and 2.7% high risk; 35 of 36 predictors for eFI, and 92 of 109 codes originally used for HFRS were available in the Japanese system. Relative to the lowest frailty group, the highest frailty group had hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 2.09 (1.98-2.21) for mortality and 2.45 (2.28-2.63) for LTC for eFI; those for HFRS were 3.79 (3.56-4.03) and 3.31 (2.87-3.82), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curves for the unadjusted model at 48 months was 0.68 for death and 0.68 for LTC for eFI, and 0.73 and 0.70, respectively, for HFRS.
    The frailty algorithms were applicable to the Japanese system and could contribute to the identifications of enrollees at risk of long-term mortality or LTC use.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED: To assess whether the electronic frailty index (eFI) is independently associated with all-cause mortality and chemotherapy adverse reactions among older Chinese patients with lung cancer.
    UNASSIGNED: This is a retrospective, single-institution, chart review, and not a prospective cohort study. All patients ≥60 years with primary lung cancer in the West China Hospital from 2010 to 2017 were included in this cohort. The eFI was established using 35 frailty-related variables in the electronic medical record (EMR) system and was cut by a value of 0.2 to classify the patients into frail (eFI ≥0.2) and robust/non-frail groups (eFI<0.2). The long-term outcome was all-cause mortality identified by government databases and telephone interviews. Short-term outcomes were any infection, bone suppression, chemotherapy discontinuation, impaired liver function, any gastrointestinal reactions and length of hospitalization. An inverse probability weighting method was used to eliminate the potential confounders. An adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and a weighted Cox model were used to calculate the survival and hazard ratio. A weighted logistic model was used to calculate the odds of short-term outcomes.
    UNASSIGNED: A total of 997 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up of 34 months. Compared with non-frail patients, frail patients had an increased risk of mortality and shortened overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] of mortality, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.60; adjusted restricted mean survival time [aRMST] difference, -5.68 months; 95% CI, -10.15 to -1.21 months). For short-term outcomes, frail patients had increased odds of infection compared to non-frail patients (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.06). No other outcome showed a significant result.
    UNASSIGNED: This study of older Chinese patients with primary lung cancer suggests that eFI-based frail patients had worse prognoses with increased risk of all-cause mortality and shortened survival times.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    An electronic frailty index (eFI) has been developed and validated in the UK; it uses data from primary care electronic medical records (EMR) for effective frailty case-finding in primary care. This project examined the convergent validity of the eFI from Canadian primary care EMR data with a validated frailty index based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGA), in order to understand its potential use in the Canadian context.
    A cross-sectional validation study, using data from an integrated primary care research program for seniors living with frailty in Edmonton, AB. Eighty-five patients 65 years of age and older from six primary care physicians\' practices were recruited. Patients were excluded if they were under 65 years of age, did not provide consent to participate in the program, or were living in a long term care facility at the time of enrolment. We used scatter plots to assess linearity and Pearson correlation coefficients to examine correlations.
    Results indicate a strong statistically significant correlation between the eFI and FI-CGA (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.81, p < 0.001). A simple linear regression showed good ability of the eFI scores to predict FI-CGA scores (F (1,83) = 89.06, p < .0001, R2 = 0.51). Both indices were also correlated with age, number of chronic conditions and number of medications.
    The study findings support the convergent validity of the eFI, which further justifies implementation of a case-finding tool that uses routinely collected primary care data in the Canadian context.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:确定虚弱是为健康不良结局高风险的老年人提供适当治疗的关键。为初级保健提议的筛查工具通常涉及额外的工作量。电子脆弱指数(eFI)有可能克服这个问题。
    目的:评估在初级保健中使用eFI的可行性和可接受性。
    方法:2016年在英格兰南部的一个郊区初级保健实践中进行的试点研究。
    方法:在初级保健TPPSystmOne数据库中使用eFI向正在进行综合老年评估(CGA)诊所试验的实践中的工作人员解释。实践数据管理器为所有患者(n=6670)运行了eFI报告。使用出生日期来识别年龄≥75岁的患者(n=589)。确定了参加CGA诊所的患者的eFI(n=18)。
    结果:实践人员在5分钟内完成了eFI报告,他们报告的是可行和可接受的。所有年龄≥75岁的患者的eFI范围为0.03至0.61(平均0.23)(平均83岁,75至102年)。对于CGA患者(平均82岁,75至94年)的eFI范围为0.19至0.53(平均0.33)。重要的是,eFI评分发现,在这种治疗中,年龄≥75岁的患者中,近12%有严重的身体虚弱.
    结论:在本试验研究中使用eFI是可行且可接受的。CGA患者的平均eFI较高,证明了脆弱识别的结构有效性。实践人员认识到eFI有可能识别出前2%的脆弱患者,以避免计划外入院。
    BACKGROUND: Identifying frailty is key to providing appropriate treatment for older people at high risk of adverse health outcomes. Screening tools proposed for primary care often involve additional workload. The electronic Frailty Index (eFI) has the potential to overcome this issue.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of using the eFI in primary care.
    METHODS: Pilot study in one suburban primary care practice in southern England in 2016.
    METHODS: Use of the eFI on the primary care TPP SystmOne database was explained to staff at the practice where a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) clinic was being trialled. The practice data manager ran an eFI report for all patients (n = 6670). Date of birth was used to identify patients aged ≥75 years (n = 589). The eFI was determined for patients attending the CGA clinic (n = 18).
    RESULTS: Practice staff ran the eFI reports in 5 minutes, which they reported was feasible and acceptable. The eFI range was 0.03 to 0.61 (mean 0.23) for all patients aged ≥75 years (mean 83 years, range 75 to 102 years). For CGA patients (mean 82 years, range 75 to 94 years) the eFI range was 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.33). Importantly, the eFI scores identified almost 12% of patients aged ≥75 years in this practice to have severe frailty.
    CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible and acceptable to use the eFI in this pilot study. A higher mean eFI in the CGA patients demonstrated construct validity for frailty identification. Practice staff recognised the potential for the eFI to identify the top 2% of vulnerable patients for avoiding unplanned admissions.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号