Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35722033›Full record

ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2022

Comparison of the prognostic value of frailty assessment tools in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized in a cardiac care unit with acute coronary syndrome.

Wojciech Nowak, Ilona Kowalik, Małgorzata Kuzin, Agnieszka Krauze, Anna Mierzyńska, Ewa Sadowy, Kamil Marcinkiewicz, Janina Stępińska

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wojciech NowakDepartment of Intensive Cardiac Therapy, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Ilona KowalikClinical Research Support Center, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Małgorzata KuzinDepartment of Intensive Cardiac Therapy, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Agnieszka KrauzeDepartment of Coronary Artery Disease and Cardiac Rehabilitation, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna MierzyńskaDepartment of Coronary Artery Disease and Cardiac Rehabilitation, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Ewa SadowyDepartment of Coronary Artery Disease and Cardiac Rehabilitation, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Kamil MarcinkiewiczDepartment of Intensive Cardiac Therapy, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Janina StępińskaDepartment of Intensive Cardiac Therapy, National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Institute of Cardiology · PLCorona (Poland) · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is associated with adverse events in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to compare the prognostic value of four frailty scales in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized with ACS in a cardiac care unit (CCU).

methodsPatients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were included. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty scale (reference standard), the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), the FRAIL scale, and the Clinical frailty scale (CFS). The primary end point was all-cause mortality and the secondary end point was unscheduled rehospitalization.

resultsOne hundred and seventy four patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were recruited. The median follow-up was 637.5 days. Frailty was identified in 41.4%, 40.2%, 39.1% and 36.3% patients by the Fried frailty scale, EFS, FRAIL scale and CFS, respectively. The agreement coefficients were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.79 for the FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS, respectively. In the Cox regression model, frailty was associated with all-cause mortality regardless of the scale used (univariate: hazard ratio [HR] 95% CI = 10.5, 2.4-46.8 Fried frailty scale; 12.0, 2.7-53.4 FRAIL scale; 7.1, 2.0-25.2 EFS; 8.3, 2.4-29.6 CFS. Multivariate: HR = 5.1, 1.1-23.8 Fried frailty scale; 5.7, 1.2-26.8 FRAIL scale; 3.7, 1.0-14.0 EFS; 4.2, 1.1-15.9 CFS). The FRAIL scale had the highest HR. In the univariate analysis, frailty was associated with unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 3.2, 1.7-6.0 Fried frailty scale; 3.4, 1.8-6.3 FRAIL scale; 3.5, 1.8-6.6 EFS; 3.1, 1.7-5.8 CFS). In the multivariate analysis, only the EFS independently predicted unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 2.2, 1.1-4.63).

conclusionsFrailty assessed by the Fried frailty scale, FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS is associated with all-cause mortality and unscheduled rehospitalization in elderly patients hospitalized in a CCU with ACS. The adjusted HR of the FRAIL scale for all-cause mortality was the highest among the scales compared, whereas the EFS was an independent predictor of unscheduled rehospitalization. These data should be taken into consideration when choosing a frailty assessment tool.

Identifiers

PMID35722033
PMCPMC9170905
OpenAlexW4283208370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.