4.5 Article

Standardised Frailty Indicator as Predictor for Postoperative Delirium after Vascular Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.07.006

Keywords

Postoperative delirium; Vascular surgery; Risk factor; Frailty; Groningen Frailty Indicator

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To determine whether the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) has a positive predictive value for postoperative delirium (POD) after vascular surgery. Methods: Between March and August 2010, 142 consecutive vascular surgery patients were prospectively evaluated. Preoperatively, the GFI was obtained and postoperatively patients were screened with the Delirium Observation Scale (DOS). Patients with a DOS-score >= 3 points were assessed by a geriatrician. Delirium was defined by the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Primary outcome variable was the incidence of POD. Secondary outcome variables were any surgical complication and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (>7 days). Results: Ten patients (7%) developed POD. The highest incidence of POD was found after aortic surgery (17%) and amputation procedures (40%). Increased comorbidities (p = 0.006), GFI score (p = 0.03), renal insufficiency (p = 0.04), elevated C-reactive protein (p = 0.008), high American Society of Anaesthesiologists score (p = 0.05), a DOS-score of >= 3 points (p = 0.001), post-operative intensive care unit admittance (p = 0.01) and HLOS >= 7 days (p = 0.005) were risk factors for POD. The GFI score was not associated with a prolonged HLOS. A mean number of 2 +/- 1 (range 0-5) complications were registered. The receiver operator characteristics (ROC) area under the curve for the GFI was 0.70. Conclusions: The GFI can be helpful in the early identification of POD after vascular surgery in a select group of high-risk patients. (C) 2011 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available