Key result
The self-reported Edmonton Frailty Scale performed similarly to the standard scale, successfully identifying high-risk patients who experienced a significantly higher rate of postoperative loss of independence compared to low-risk patients (20.4% vs 3.6%).
Why the study?
In the era of virtual care, self-reported preoperative assessment tools are beneficial, prompting validation of the self-reported domains of the Edmonton Frailty Scale against loss of independence and mortality.
Does the self-reported Edmonton Frailty Scale (srEFS) predict loss of independence and mortality similarly to the standard EFS in patients 65 years and older undergoing surgery?
Observational (n=535)
No
Does the self-reported Edmonton Frailty Scale (srEFS) predict loss of independence and mortality similarly to the standard EFS in patients 65 years and older undergoing surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 20.4% vs 3.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
The self-reported Edmonton Frailty Scale performs similarly to the standard EFS in predicting loss of independence and mortality in older surgical patients, supporting its use in virtual preoperative assessments.
May aid virtual preoperative frailty assessment; hypothesis-generating for srEFS association with LOI and mortality.
INTRODUCTION: In the era of virtual care, self-reported tools are beneficial for preoperative assessments and facilitating postoperative planning. We have previously reported the use of the Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) as a valid preoperative assessment tool. OBJECTIVE: We wished to validate the self-reported domains of the EFS (srEFS) by examining its association with loss of independence (LOI) and mortality. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of a single-institution observational study of patients 65 years of age or older undergoing multi-specialty surgical procedures and assessed with the EFS in the preoperative setting. Exploratory data analysis was used to determine the threshold for identifying frailty using the srEFS. Procedures were classified using the Operative Stress Score (OSS) scored 1 to 5 (lowest to highest). Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) was utilized to risk-adjust. LOI was described as requiring more support at discharge and mortality was defined as death occurring up to 30 days following surgery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the ability of the srEFS to predict the outcomes of interest in relation to the EFS. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-five patients were included. Exploratory analysis confirmed best positive predictive value for srEFS was greater or equal to 5. Overall, 113 (21 percent) patients were considered high risk for frailty (HRF) and 179 (33 percent) patients had an OSS greater or equal to 5. LOI occurred in 7 percent (38 patients) and the mortality rate was 4 percent (21 patients). ROC analysis showed that the srEFS performed similar to the standard EFS with no difference in discriminatory thresholds for predicting LOI and mortality. Examination of the domains of the EFS not included in the srEFS demonstrated a lack of association between cognitive decline and the outcomes of interest. However, functional status assessed with either the Get up and Go (EFS only) or self-reported ADLs was independently associated with increased risk for LOI. CONCLUSION: This study shows that self-reported EFS may be an optional preoperative tool that can be used in the virtual setting to identify patients at HRF. Early identification of patients at risk for LOI and mortality provides an opportunity to implement targeted strategies to improve patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sirisegaram et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Preoperative frailty (n=535). Self-reported Edmonton Frailty Scale (srEFS) score ≥ 5 (High Risk for Frailty) vs. srEFS score < 5 (Non-High Risk for Frailty) was evaluated on Postoperative loss of independence (LOI) at discharge (p=<0.001). The self-reported Edmonton Frailty Scale performed similarly to the standard scale, successfully identifying high-risk patients who experienced a significantly higher rate of postoperative loss of independence compared to low-risk patients (20.4% vs 3.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: