» Articles » PMID: 37892606

Prognostic Value of a New Tool (the 3D/3D+) for Predicting 30-Day Mortality in Emergency Department Patients Aged 75 Years and Older

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Oct 28
PMID 37892606
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The 3D/3D+ multidimensional geriatric assessment tool provides an optimal model of emergency care for patients aged 75 and over who attend the Emergency Department (ED). The baseline, or static, component (3D) stratifies the degree of frailty prior to the acute illness, while the current, or dynamic, component (3D+) assesses the multidimensional impact caused by the acute illness and helps to guide the choice of care facility for patients upon their discharge from the ED. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the 3D/3D+ to predict short- and long-term adverse outcomes in ED patients aged 75 years and older. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify the predictors of mortality 30 days after 3D/3D+ assessment. Two hundred and seventy-eight patients (59.7% women) with a median age of 86 years (interquartile range: 83-90) were analyzed. According to the baseline component (3D), 83.1% (95% CI: 78.2-87.3) presented some degree of frailty. The current component (3D+) presented alterations in 60.1% (95% CI: 54.1-65.9). The choice of care facility at ED discharge indicated by the 3D/3D+ was considered appropriate in 96.4% (95% CI: 93.0-98.0). Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 19.4%. Delirium and functional decline were the dimensions on the 3D/3D+ that were independently associated with 30-day mortality. These two dimensions had an area under receiver operating characteristic of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86) for predicting 30-day mortality. The 3D/3D+ tool enhances the provision of comprehensive care by ED professionals, guides them in the choice of patients' discharge destination, and has a prognostic validity that serves to establish future therapeutic objectives.

References
1.
GRESHAM G, Phillips T, Labi M . ADL status in stroke: relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980; 61(8):355-8. View

2.
Rivero-Santana A, Del Pino-Sedeno T, Ramallo-Farina Y, Vergara I, Serrano-Aguilar P . [Usefulness of scoring risk for adverse outcomes in older patients with the Identification of Seniors at Risk scale and the Triage Risk Screening Tool: a meta-analysis]. Emergencias. 2017; 29(1):49-60. View

3.
Fehlmann C, Nickel C, Cino E, Al-Najjar Z, Langlois N, Eagles D . Frailty assessment in emergency medicine using the Clinical Frailty Scale: a scoping review. Intern Emerg Med. 2022; 17(8):2407-2418. PMC: 9302874. DOI: 10.1007/s11739-022-03042-5. View

4.
Serina P, Lo A, Kocherginsky M, Gray E, Lindquist L, Post L . The Clinical Frailty Scale and Health Services Use for Older Adults in the Emergency Department. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020; 69(3):837-839. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.16937. View

5.
Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan D, McDowell I . A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005; 173(5):489-95. PMC: 1188185. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050051. View