Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34595836›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2021

Prognostic score based on physical frailty in patients with heart failure: a multicenter prospective cohort study (FLAGSHIP).

Sumio Yamada, Takuji Adachi, Hideo Izawa, Toyoaki Murohara, Takaaki Kondo, FLAGSHIP collaborators

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Frailty and heart failure: State-of-the-art review.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Scoring the physical frailty phenotype of patients with heart failure.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sumio YamadaDepartment of Integrated Health Sciences, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5629-6475
Takuji AdachiDepartment of Integrated Health Sciences, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9756-0343
Hideo IzawaDepartment of Cardiology, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan.
Toyoaki MuroharaDepartment of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Takaaki KondoDepartment of Integrated Health Sciences, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
FLAGSHIP collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients with heart failure (HF), physical frailty should be assessed to enable risk stratification. No conventional frailty criteria have so far been developed considering HF-specific outcomes. This study aimed to propose a frailty-based prognostic score using a nationwide cohort study of Japanese patients with HF.

methodsWe analysed 2721 patients hospitalized for HF and capable of walking at discharge (median age: 76 years [interquartile range 67-83], men: 60.5%). Physical frailty was evaluated at discharge using four quantitative measures: usual walking speed, grip strength, Performance Measure for Activities of Daily Living-8 (PMADL-8), and Self-Efficacy for Walking-7 (SEW-7). The primary outcome was a composite of HF rehospitalization and all-cause mortality within 2 years. A cut-off point was identified for each measure using receiver operating characteristic analysis in a derivation cohort (n = 1778). Cox proportional hazards model was used to assign a score to each frailty domain according to the correlation with the endpoint. Patients were divided into four categories according to the sum score, and survival was compared by analysing the Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox proportional hazards model. Cumulative incidences of the events according to frailty categories were compared between the derivation cohort and a validation cohort (n = 943).

resultsThe cut-off value and assigned score of each indicator was determined as follows: usual walking speed < 0.98 m/s = 4 points; grip strength < 30.0 kg (men) or 17.5 kg (women) = 5 points; PMADL-8 ≥ 21 points = 2 points; SEW-7 ≤ 20 points = 3 points. We stratified patients into four categories according to the sum score: Category I, ≤3 points; Categories II, 4-8 points; Category III, 9-13 points; and Category IV, 14 points. The prevalence and cumulative incidence of the composite outcome for Categories I to IV in the derivation cohort were 27.4%, 25.2%, 26.4%, and 21.0%, and 9.5, 16.3, 26.3, and 36.8/100 person-years, respectively. Similar results were confirmed in the validation cohort. In Cox proportional hazards model, frailty categories were associated with the composite outcome independent of potential confounders (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] in reference to Category I: Categories II, 1.51 [0.84-2.72], P = 0.169; Category III, 2.37 [1.32-4.23], P = 0.004; Category IV, 2.66 [1.45-4.89], P = 0.002).

conclusionsThe frailty-based prognostic score proposed in this study was well associated with prognosis and will serve for risk stratification in patients with HF.

Indexed as

FrailtyHeart FailureActivities of Daily LivingAgedCohort StudiesFemaleFrail ElderlyHumansMalePrognosisProspective StudiesCohort studyFrailtyHeart failurePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID34595836
PMCPMC8718028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.