Evidence Hub

Frailty and long-term survival of non-cancer patients admitted to intensive care after surgery: a retrospective multicentre cohort study

Ryo Ueno, Rachel Chan, R. Ling, R. Slack, Sandra Lussier, Daryl Jones, David V. Pilcher, A. Subramaniam

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2025

216 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

As the global population ages and older patients undergo surgery, understanding the association between frailty and postoperative outcomes is crucial to informed decision-making and patient care. There is a lack of research assessing the association between frailty and long-term outcomes in patients admitted to ICUs after surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study using Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database, linked with the Australian National Death Index. Adults aged ≥16 yr admitted to the 175 ICUs in Australia between January 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022, after surgery were included. We excluded patients with cancer or admission to ICU for palliation or organ donation purpose. Patients with Clinical Frailty Scale score 5-8 were considered frail. The primary outcome was survival time up to 4 yr after ICU admission. Survival analysis was performed using mixed-effects Cox regression models and adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, acute illness severity, and hospital types.

RESULTS

We included 216 922 patients of whom 30 860 (14.2%) were frail. Patients with frailty had shorter overall survival time (median [IQR]: 16 [6-29] vs 21 [10-34] months; P<0.01) when compared with patients without frailty. After adjusting for confounders, frailty was associated with a shorter time to death (HR: 2.33, 95% CI: 2.26-2.40). This association was consistent across sensitivity analyses and subgroups. Of note, this…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 216 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free