Key result
The Edmonton Frail Scale discriminated mortality risk better than the Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried tests in older ACS patients, with an EFS score ≥9 associated with a 5-fold higher risk (HR 5.0).
Why the study?
To evaluate the relative strengths of three frailty assessment instruments for predicting mortality and prolonged hospitalization in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Does the Edmonton Frail Scale predict mortality and prolonged hospitalization better than the Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried Criteria in older patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Cohort (n=1,174)
Yes
Does the Edmonton Frail Scale predict mortality and prolonged hospitalization better than the Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried Criteria in older patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Hazard Ratio: 5 (95% CI 3.4–7.4)
The Edmonton Frail Scale provides superior prognostic discrimination for mortality and prolonged hospitalization compared to the Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried Criteria in older patients with acute coronary syndrome.
May aid risk stratification in elderly ACS patients; leaves open optimal frailty instrument for routine use.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative strengths of 3 frailty assessment instruments for predicting mortality and prolonged hospitalization in acute coronary syndrome patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Acute cardiac care units in New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: 1174 patients >70 years of age hospitalized with an acute coronary syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and Fried Criteria (Fried), were completed during hospital admission following an acute coronary syndrome when the patient was clinically stable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality over the next ~5 years and hospitalization for >10 days in the next year determined from national administrative data. RESULTS: During median follow-up of 5.1 years there were 353 deaths. Harrell's C-statistic for mortality for EFS was 0.663, Fried 0.648 and CFS 0.640 (p<0.001 for all). C-statistics for hospitalization >10 days (n = 267, 22%) were EFS 0.649, Fried 0.628, and CFS 0.584 (p<0.001 for all). Associations between increase in frailty scores and mortality were graded including in patients not classified as frail. The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality, adjusted for age and sex, for patients with an EFS score ≥9 (n = 197) compared to ≤2 (n = 331) was 5.0 (95% CI: 3.4-7.4). In models which included the Euroscore II or GRACE risk scores the EFS improved risk discrimination for both mortality and prolonged hospitalization more than the CFS and Fried. CONCLUSION: In older patients assessed following an acute coronary syndrome the EFS discriminated the risk of all cause mortality and prolonged hospitalization better than the CFS and Fried tests, and improved risk discrimination when added to clinical risk scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Langsted et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndrome (n=1,174). Frailty assessment instruments (EFS, CFS, Fried) vs. Lower frailty scores was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 5.0, 95% CI 3.4-7.4). The Edmonton Frail Scale discriminated mortality risk better than the Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried tests in older ACS patients, with an EFS score ≥9 associated with a 5-fold higher risk (HR 5.0).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: