Search

Objective: To compare predictive accuracy of frailty instruments operationalizable in electronic data for prognosticating outcomes among older adults undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS)., Background: Older patients undergoing EGS are at higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative frailty is a common and strong perioperative risk factor in this population. Despite this, existing barriers preclude routine preoperative frailty assessment., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults above 65 undergoing EGS from 2012 to 2018 using Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) provincial healthcare data in Ontario, Canada. We compared 4 frailty instruments: Frailty Index (FI), Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), Risk Analysis Index-Administrative (RAI), ACG Frailty-defining diagnoses indicator (ACG). We compared predictive accuracy beyond baseline risk models (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, procedural risk). Predictive performance was measured using discrimination, calibration, explained variance, net reclassification index and Brier score (binary outcomes); using explained variance, root mean squared error and mean absolute prediction error (continuous outcomes). Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 365-day mortality, nonhome discharge, days alive at home, length of stay, and 30-day and 365-day health systems cost., Results: A total of 121,095 EGS patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 11,422 (9.4%) experienced death 30 days postoperatively. Addition of FI, HFRS, and RAI to the baseline model led to improved discrimination, net reclassification index, and R2 ; RAI demonstrated the largest improvements., Conclusions: Adding 4 frailty instruments to typically assessed preoperative risk factors demonstrated strong predictive performance in accurately prognosticating perioperative outcomes. These findings can be considered in developing automated risk stratification systems among older EGS patients., Competing Interests: A.L.G. has received the Residents’ Research Operating Grant (CAS-2021-038) from the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Older adults with frailty are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes after surgery. Exercise before surgery (exercise prehabilitation) may reduce adverse events and improve recovery after surgery. However, adherence with exercise therapy is often low, especially in older populations. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively assess the barriers and facilitators to participating in exercise prehabilitation from the perspective of older people with frailty participating in the intervention arm of a randomized trial., Methods: This was a research ethics approved, nested descriptive qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial of home-based exercise prehabilitation vs. standard care with older patients (≥ 60 years) having elective cancer surgery, and who were living with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥ 4). The intervention was a home-based prehabilitation program for at least 3 weeks before surgery that involved aerobic activity, strength and stretching, and nutritional advice. After completing the prehabilitation program, participants were asked to partake in a semi-structured interview informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Qualitative analysis was guided by the TDF., Results: Fifteen qualitative interviews were completed. Facilitators included: 1) the program being manageable and suitable to older adults with frailty, 2) adequate resources to support engagement, 3) support from others, 4) a sense of control, intrinsic value, noticing progress and improving health outcomes and 5) the program was enjoyable and facilitated by previous experience. Barriers included: 1) pre-existing conditions, fatigue and baseline fitness, 2) weather, and 3) guilt and frustration when unable to exercise. A need for individualization and variety was offered as a suggestion by participants and was therefore described as both a barrier and facilitator., Conclusions: Home-based exercise prehabilitation is feasible and acceptable to older people with frailty preparing for cancer surgery. Participants identified that a home-based program was manageable, easy to follow with helpful resources, included valuable support from the research team, and they reported self-perceived health benefits and a sense of control over their health. Future studies and implementation should consider increased personalization based on health and fitness, psychosocial support and modifications to aerobic exercises in response to adverse weather conditions., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Perioperative frailty is prevalent and requires complex management, which could be guided by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise CPGs that provide perioperative recommendations specific to older adults living with frailty., Methods: After protocol registration, we performed a systematic review of CPGs. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and 14 grey literature databases were searched (January 1, 2000 until December 22, 2021). We included all CPGs that contained at least one frailty-specific recommendation related to any phase of the perioperative period. We compiled all relevant recommendations, extracted underlying strength of evidence, and categorised them by perioperative phase of care. Within each phase, recommendations were synthesised inductively into themes. Quality of CPGs was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument., Results: From 4707 citations, 13 guidelines were included; 8/13 were focused on the perioperative care of older surgical patients in general. Among 110 recommendations extracted, 37 themes were generated, with the majority pertaining to preoperative care. Four themes were supported by strong evidence: performing preoperative frailty assessments, using multidimensional frailty instruments, reducing urinary catheter use, and following multidisciplinary care and communication throughout the perioperative period. Per AGREE II, most guidelines (8/13; 62%) were recommended for use with modifications., Conclusions: Despite increasing numbers of patients living with frailty, few guidelines exist that address frailty-specific perioperative care. Given the lack of strong evidence-based recommendations, particularly outside the preoperative period, high-quality primary research is required to underpin future guidelines and better inform the care of older surgical patients with frailty., Systematic Review Protocol: PROSPERO CRD42022320149., (Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Preoperative frailty assessment is recommended by multiple practice guidelines and may improve outcomes, but it is not routinely performed. The barriers and facilitators of routine preoperative frailty assessment have not been formally assessed. Our objective was to perform a theory-guided evaluation of barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment., Methods: This was a research ethics board-approved qualitative study involving physicians who perform preoperative assessment (consultant and resident anesthesiologists and consultant surgeons). Semistructured interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to frailty assessment. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two research assistants to identify specific beliefs relevant to each theoretical domain., Results: We interviewed 28 clinicians (nine consultant anesthesiologists, nine consultant surgeons, and ten anesthesiology residents). Six domains (Knowledge [100%], Social Influences [96%], Social Professional Role and Identity [96%], Beliefs about Capabilities [93%], Goals [93%], and Intentions [93%]) were identified by > 90% of respondents. The most common barriers identified were prioritization of other aspects of assessment (e.g., cardio/respiratory) and a lack of awareness of evidence and guidelines supporting frailty assessment. The most common facilitators were a high degree of familiarity with frailty, recognition of the importance of frailty assessment, and strong intentions to perform frailty assessment., Conclusion: Barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment are multidimensional, but generally consistent across different types of perioperative physicians. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators can guide development of evidence-based strategies to increase frailty assessment., (© 2022. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.)

Background: Preoperative frailty is associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality and complications. Routine preoperative frailty assessment is underperformed. Automation of preoperative frailty assessment using electronic health data could improve adherence to guideline-based care if an accurate instrument is identified., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults >65 yr undergoing elective noncardiac surgery between 2012 and 2018. Four frailty instruments were compared: Frailty Index, Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Risk Analysis Index-Administrative, and Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. We compared the predictive performance of each instrument added to a baseline model (age, sex, ASA physical status, and procedural risk) using discrimination, calibration, explained variance, net reclassification, and Brier score (binary outcomes); and explained variance, root mean squared error, and mean absolute prediction error (continuous outcomes). Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 365-day mortality, length of stay, non-home discharge, days alive at home, and 365-day costs., Results: For this study, 171 576 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1370 (0.8%) died within 30 days. Compared with the baseline model predicting 30-day mortality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85; R 2 0.08), the addition of Hospital Frailty Risk Score led to the greatest improvement in discrimination (AUC 0.87), explained variance (R 2 0.09), and net reclassification (Net Reclassification Index 0.65). Brier and calibration scores were comparable., Conclusions: All four frailty instruments significantly improved discrimination and risk reclassification when added to typically assessed preoperative risk factors. Accurate identification of the presence or absence of preoperative frailty using electronic frailty instruments may improve perioperative risk stratification. Future research should evaluate the impact of automated frailty assessment in guiding surgical planning and patient-centred optimisation amongst older surgical patients., (Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dysregulation of immune responses to surgical stress in older patients and those with frailty may manifest as differences in inflammatory biomarkers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine differences in perioperative inflammatory biomarkers between older and younger patients, and between patients with and without frailty., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched (Inception to June 23, 2020). Observational or experimental studies reporting the perioperative level or activity of biomarkers in surgical patients stratified by age or frailty status were included. The primary outcome was inflammatory biomarkers (grouped by window of ascertainment: pre-op; post-op: <12 hours, 12-24 hours, 1-3 days, 3 days to 1 week, and >1 week). Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted., Results: Forty-five studies (4263 patients) were included in the review, of which 36 were pooled for meta-analysis (28 noncardiac and 8 cardiac studies). Two studies investigated frailty as the exposure, while the remaining investigated age. In noncardiac studies, older patients had higher preoperative levels of interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP), lower preoperative levels of lymphocytes, and higher postoperative levels of IL-6 (<12 hours) and CRP (12-24 hours) than younger patients. In cardiac studies, older patients had higher preoperative levels of IL-6 and CRP and higher postoperative levels of IL-6 (<12 hours and >1 week)., Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate a paucity of frailty-specific studies; however, the presence of age-associated differences in the perioperative inflammatory response is consistent with age-associated states of chronic systemic inflammation and immunosenescence. Additional studies assessing frailty-specific changes in the systemic biologic response to surgery may inform the development of targeted interventions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Background: Frailty is associated with poor postoperative outcomes, but existing data do not describe frailty's interaction with tumour characteristics at the time of cancer surgery. Our objective was to estimate the association between frailty and long-term survival, and to explore any interaction with tumour stage and grade., Methods: This was a population-based cohort study conducted using linked provincial health administrative data in Ontario, Canada (2009-20). Using a cancer registry, we identified adults having elective cancer surgery. Frailty was measured using a validated index (range 0-1; higher score=greater frailty). Associations between frailty and long-term postoperative survival (primary outcome) were estimated using proportional hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, discharge destination, days alive at home, and healthcare costs., Results: We identified and included 52 012 patients. Mean frailty score was 0.13 (standard deviation 0.07). During follow-up, 19 378 (37.3%) patients died. After adjustment for risk factors, each 10% increase in frailty was associated with a 1.60-fold relative decrease in survival (95% confidence interval: 1.56-1.64). The frailty-survival association was strongest for patients with lower stage and grade cancers. Increased frailty was associated with longer hospital stays (3 days), fewer days alive and at home (42 days yr -1 ), more frequent discharge to a nursing facility (2.38-fold), and increased healthcare costs ($6048)., Conclusions: Patient frailty is associated with decreased long-term survival after cancer surgery. The association is stronger for early-stage and -grade cancers, which would otherwise have a better survival prognosis., (Copyright © 2021 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Frailty is a robust predictor of adverse outcomes in older people. Practice guidelines recommend routine screening for frailty; however, this does not occur regularly. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a validated, feasible instrument that can be used in a variety of clinical settings and is associated with many adverse outcomes. Our objective was to develop and evaluate an online training module to guide frailty assessment using the CFS., Methods: A multidisciplinary team of clinical experts developed an evidence-based, theory-grounded online training module for users who wished to perform frailty assessment using the CFS. The module was prospectively evaluated for user satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility using a standardised questionnaire. Qualitative feedback was analysed with thematic analysis., Results: Version 1 of the CFS module was used 627 times from 21 October 2019 to 24 March 2020. Satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility of the module were positively rated (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale n = 582 [93%], n = 507, [81%], n = 575, [91%], respectively). Qualitative feedback highlighted ease of use, likelihood of users to share the module with others and opportunities to increase multimedia content., Conclusion: An online tutorial, designed using evidence and theory to guide frailty assessment using the CFS, was positively rated by users. The module's content and structure was rated effective and feasible, and users were satisfied with, and likely to share, the module. Research evaluating the module's impact on the accuracy of frailty assessment is required., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Guidelines recommend routine preoperative frailty assessment for older people. However, the degree to which frailty instruments improve predictive accuracy when added to traditional risk factors is poorly described. Our objective was to measure the accuracy gained in predicting outcomes important to older patients when adding the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Fried Phenotype (FP), or Frailty Index (FI) to traditional risk factors., Methods: This was an analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort of elective noncardiac surgery patients ≥65 years of age. Each frailty instrument was prospectively collected. The added predictive performance of each frailty instrument beyond the baseline model (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, procedural risk) was estimated using likelihood ratio test, discrimination, calibration, explained variance, and reclassification. Outcomes analyzed included death or new disability, prolonged length of stay (LoS, >75th percentile), and adverse discharge (death or non-home discharge)., Results: We included 645 participants (mean age, 74 [standard deviation, 6]); 72 (11.2%) participants died or experienced a new disability, 164 (25.4%) had prolonged LoS, and 60 (9.2%) had adverse discharge. Compared to the baseline model predicting death or new disability (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67; R, 0.08, good calibration), prolonged LoS (AUC, 0.73; R, 0.18, good calibration), and adverse discharge (AUC, 0.78; R, 0.16, poor calibration), the CFS improved fit per the likelihood ratio test (P < .02 for death or new disability, <.001 for LoS, <.001 for discharge), discrimination (AUC = 0.71 for death or new disability, 0.76 for LoS, 0.82 for discharge), calibration (good for death or new disability, LoS, and discharge), explained variance (R = 0.11 for death or new disability, 0.22 for LoS, 0.25 for discharge), and reclassification (appropriate directional reclassification) for all outcomes. The FP improved discrimination and R for all outcomes, but to a lesser degree than the CFS. The FI improved discrimination for death or new disability and R for all outcomes, but to a lesser degree than the CFS and the FP. These results were consistent in internal validation., Conclusions: Frailty instruments provide meaningful increases in accuracy when predicting postoperative outcomes for older people. Compared to the FP and FI, the CFS appears to improve all measures of predictive performance to the greatest extent and across outcomes. Combined with previous research demonstrating that the CFS is easy to use and requires less time than the FP, clinicians should consider its use in preoperative practice.

Background: Frailty strongly predicts adverse outcomes in a variety of clinical settings; however, frailty-related trauma outcomes have not been systematically reviewed and quantitatively synthesized. Our objective was to systematically review and meta-analyze the association between frailty and outcomes (mortality-primary; complications, health resource use, and patient experience-secondary) after multisystem trauma., Methods: After registration (CRD42018104116), we applied a peer-reviewed search strategy to MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Comprehensive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to May 22, 2019, to identify studies that described: (1) multisystem trauma; (2) participants ≥18 years of age; (3) explicit frailty instrument application; and (4) relevant outcomes. Excluded studies included those that: (1) lacked a comparator group; (2) reported isolated injuries; and (3) reported mixed trauma and nontrauma populations. Criteria were applied independently, in duplicate to title/abstract and full-text articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Effect measures (adjusted for prespecified confounders) were pooled using random-effects models; otherwise, narrative synthesis was used., Results: Sixteen studies were included that represented 5198 participants; 9.9% of people with frailty died compared to 4.2% of people without frailty. Frailty was associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-1.71), complications (adjusted OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.72-3.15), and adverse discharge (adjusted OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.29-2.45). Patient function, experience, and resource use outcomes were rarely reported., Conclusions: The presence of frailty is significantly associated with mortality, complications, and adverse discharge disposition after multisystem trauma. This provides important prognostic information to inform discussions with patients and families and highlights the need for trauma system optimization to meet the complex needs of older patients.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Frailty is an important prognostic factor for adverse outcomes and increased resource use in the growing population of older surgical patients. We identified and appraised studies that tested interventions in populations of frail surgical patients to improve perioperative outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE and Medline to identify studies that tested interventions in populations of frail patients having surgery. All phases of study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Results were synthesized qualitatively per a prespecified protocol (CRD42016039909). Results: We identified 2 593 titles; 11 were included for final analysis, representing 1 668 participants in orthopedic, general, cardiac, and mixed surgical populations. Only one study was multicenter and risk of bias was moderate to high in all studies. Interventions were applied pre- and postoperatively, and included exercise therapy (n = 4), multicomponent geriatric care protocols (n = 5), and blood transfusion triggers (n = 1); no specific surgical techniques were compared. Exercise therapy, applied pre-, or post-operatively, was associated with significant improvements in functional outcomes and improved quality of life. Multicomponent protocols suffered from poor compliance and difficulties in implementation. Transfusion triggers had no significant impact on mortality or other outcomes. Conclusions: Despite a growing literature that demonstrates strong independent associations between frailty and adverse outcomes, few interventions have been tested to improve the outcomes of frail surgical patients, and most available studies are at substantial risk of bias. Multicenter, low risk of bias, studies of perioperative exercise are needed, while substantial efforts are required to develop and test other interventions to improve the outcomes of frail people having surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people (≥65 yr) are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality after emergency general surgery. Risk prediction models are needed to guide decision making in this high-risk population. Existing models have substantial limitations and lack external validation, potentially limiting their applicability in clinical use. We aimed to derive and validate, both internally and externally, a multivariable model to predict 30-day mortality risk in older patients undergoing emergency general surgery.Methods: After protocol publication, we used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2012-6; estimated to contain 90% data from the USA and 10% from Canada) to derive and internally validate a model to predict 30-day mortality for older people having emergency general surgery using logistic regression with elastic net regularisation. Internal validation was done with 10-fold cross-validation. External validation was done using a temporally separate health administrative database exclusively from Ontario, Canada.Results: Overall, 6012 (12.0%) of the 50 221 patients died within 30 days. The model demonstrated strong discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]=0.871) and calibration across the spectrum of observed and predicted risks. Ten-fold internal cross-validation demonstrated minimal optimism (AUC=0.851, optimism 0.019 [standard deviation=0.06]) with excellent calibration. External validation demonstrated lower discrimination (AUC=0.700) and degraded calibration.Conclusion: A multivariable mortality risk prediction model was strongly discriminative and well calibrated internally. However, poor external validation suggests the model may not be generalisable to non-NSQIP data and hospitals. The findings highlight the importance of external validation before clinical application of risk models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]