» Articles » PMID: 39166674

Comparison of Two Different Frailty Screening Scales for Predicting Mortality Due to All Causes in Older Inpatients

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2024 Aug 21
PMID 39166674
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study examines the relationship between two frailty screening tools and 90-day all-cause mortality in geriatric inpatients.

Methods: The study included patients aged ≥60 years who were admitted to the geriatrics unit of a university hospital between June 2021 and August 2022 and whose mortality status and duration of hospitalization data were obtained from the Health Ministry System. During hospitalization, the patients were screened using two different frailty scales: the Simpler Modified Fried Frailty Scale (sMFS) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Patients scoring ≥5 on the CFS and ≥3 on the sMFS were considered frail.

Results: A total of 84 participants with a mean age of 78.3±7.6 years were included in this study, of which 36.9% were male. Of the total, 60.7% and 89.3% were considered frail according to the CFS and sMFS, respectively, and the prevalence of all-cause mortality within 90 days was 19%. A univariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier survival method revealed CFS scores to be statistically significantly related to 90-day all-cause mortality (p<0.001), while sMFS scores were not found to be statistically significant (p=0.849). Furthermore, a statistically significant relationship was identified between CFS score and all-cause mortality in multivariate analysis with Cox regression analysis [(p<0.001), hazard ratio (HR): 3.078; (95% confidence interval: 1.746-5.425)].

Conclusion: An evaluation of frailty in hospitalized older adults using two different scales revealed the CFS to be superior to the sMFS in predicting all-cause mortality within 90 days.

Citing Articles

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of frailty and pre-frailty amongst older hospital inpatients in low- and middle-income countries.

Davidson S, Lee J, Emmence L, Bickerstaff E, Rayers G, Davidson E Age Ageing. 2025; 54(1).

PMID: 39757939 PMC: 11701313. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afae279.

References
1.
Chan D, Tsou H, Chang C, Yang R, Tsauo J, Chen C . Integrated care for geriatric frailty and sarcopenia: a randomized control trial. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2016; 8(1):78-88. PMC: 5326822. DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12132. View

2.
Nygaard H, Henriksen M, Suetta C, Ekmann A . Comparison of two frailty screening tools for acutely admitted elderly patients. Dan Med J. 2022; 69(8). View

3.
Bare M, Herranz S, Jordana R, Queralt Gorgas M, Ortonobes S, Sevilla D . Multimorbidity patterns in chronic older patients, potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions: protocol of the multicentre prospective cohort study MoPIM. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(1):e033322. PMC: 7044922. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033322. View

4.
Beard J, Officer A, Araujo de Carvalho I, Sadana R, Pot A, Michel J . The World report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet. 2015; 387(10033):2145-2154. PMC: 4848186. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4. 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