Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT02838511
NCT02838511
Completed
Not Applicable

Which is a Better Measure of Frailty in Perioperative Setting: Deficit Accumulation Model or Phenotype Model?

The Cleveland Clinic1 site in 1 country1,190 target enrollmentJanuary 2015
ConditionsFrailty

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Frailty
Sponsor
The Cleveland Clinic
Enrollment
1190
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Days in Hospital
Status
Completed
Last Updated
6 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

Though most physicians believe they can identify frail patients, frailty is a poorly characterized and complex clinical syndrome. Frailty has been categorized four dimensions by de Vries et al: 1) physical (physical activity, nutrition, mobility, strength and energy); 2) biochemical (nutritional and inflammatory biomarkers); 3) psychological (cognition and mood); and, 4) social (social contact and support). 1 However, the pathophysiology of frailty remains unclear. Two broad hypotheses have been proposed.

Deficit accumulation model: This hypothesis assumes that frailty occurs due to accumulation and additive effect of multiple deficits, which occur across various domains. The more deficits a person has, the more likely that person is to be frail. Frailty in this paradigm is thus measured by identifying the number of positive factors/ deficits from a list. This is used to create a proportional index of deficits, expressed as the ratio of deficits present to the total number of deficits considered.

Many studies have used a modified frailty index (MFI) with 11 factors, which has shown to correlate well with patient outcomes after surgery.

Phenotype model: Fried et al in 2001 proposed a phenotype based model, in which she identified various clinical features that define frailty as a clinical syndrome. This criterion, known as Fried index, consists of 5 factors- shrinking, weakness, exhaustion, slowness, and low physical activity level. The Fried index is the most commonly used phenotype-based assessment tool to evaluate frailty. An advantage is its ease-of use during preoperative visits. Measurement of these factors in a perioperative setting was further characterized by Makary et al in 2010, and was the basis for the Hopkins Frailty Score (HFS).

Currently, there exists no gold standard for assessment of frailty, especially in the perioperative setting. In the absence of a well-accepted gold standard, a measurement of frailty which would predict adverse postoperative outcomes would be useful. However, no study has compared the prognostic abilities of HFS and MFI, after non-cardiac surgery.

All adult patients presenting to pre anesthesia evaluation clinic (PACE) at Cleveland Clinic main campus will be included in the this prospective observational cohort study. Frailty would be evaluated prospectively using HFS and components of MFI will be obtained from Cleveland Clinic Perioperative Health Documentation System registry (PHDS).

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
January 2015
End Date
September 2019
Last Updated
6 years ago
Study Type
Observational
Sex
All

Investigators

Responsible Party
Sponsor

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • adult patients (18-100 years of age)
  • patients presenting to the PACE clinic for non cardiac surgery

Exclusion Criteria

  • children (under 18 years of age)
  • patients presenting to the PACE clinic for cardiac surgery

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Days in Hospital

Time Frame: 30 days after non-cardiac surgery

total number of days spent by patient in the hospital within 30 days of non-cardiac surgery

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials