Evidence Hub

Frailty and associated prognosis among older emergency department patients with suspected infection: A prospective, observational cohort study

S. Fernando, K. Guo, M. Lukasik, B. Rochwerg, D. Cook, K. Kyeremanteng, J. Perry

CJEM, 2020

203 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prognosis and disposition among older emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection remains challenging. Frailty is increasingly recognized as a predictor of poor prognosis among critically ill patients; however, its association with clinical outcomes among older ED patients with suspected infection is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study at two tertiary care EDs. We included older ED patients (≥75 years) with suspected infection. Frailty at baseline (before index illness) was explicitly measured for all patients by the treating physicians using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). We defined frailty as a CFS 5-8. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for known confounders. We also compared the prognostic accuracy of frailty with the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria.

RESULTS

We enrolled 203 patients, of whom 117 (57.6%) were frail. Frail patients were more likely to develop septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.51) and more likely to die within 30 days of ED presentation (aOR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.02-5.24). Sensitivity for mortality was highest among the CFS (73.1%; 95% CI, 52.2-88.4), compared with SIRS ≥ 2 (65.4%; 95% CI, 44.3-82.8) or qSOFA ≥ 2 (38.4; 95% CI, 20.2-59.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is a highly prevalent prognostic factor that can be used to…

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: 203 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