ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2025
Which frailty score in cardiac surgery patients?
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frailty assessment for risk prediction is suggested in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We aimed to compare five different frailty tests. Methods: Relation of Edmonton Frailty Score (EFS), Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), FRAIL (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight), Katz and hand grip strength (HGS) tests to each other, postoperative outcomes and mortality rates were evaluated prospectively in 140 consecutive patients aged ≥65 years. Results: The median follow-up period was 880.5 (range, 0 to 1,237) days with higher EFS and FFP scores in non-survivors (p<0.05). Patients with any complication had higher EFS (p=0.002), FFP (p=0.004) and FRAIL (p=0,006) scores. Compared to non-frail patients, frail patients' NYHA capacity, EuroSCORE II and STS mortality risks were higher; hemoglobin values and HGS were lower with EFS, FFP, and FRAIL tests. Frail patients' hospitalization periods with EFS (p=0.003) and intensive care unit stay with FFP (p=0.029) were longer. No mortality was observed in non-frail patients according to the FFP test. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) log-rank survival curves showed significant differences in favor of non-frail subgroups according to EFS, FFP and HGS tests (p<0.05). Relative risks for mortality in frail and pre-frail patients were between 0.9 and 4. The FFP was the most sensitive test (area under curve=0.721). There was discordance rather than concordance among five different tests (Kappa <0.411). Conclusion: For patients aged ≥65 years undergoing heart surgery the FFP can be used safely to determine non-frail patients. Although the EFS seems to be promising to identify frail patients, further large-scale studies using various tests are needed to predict an optimal cut-off value for this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.