4.6 Article

Frailty as a Predictor of Mortality in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease Referred for Lung Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 104, 期 4, 页码 864-872

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002901

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Frailty is a clinically recognized syndrome of decreased physiological reserve and a key contributor to suboptimal clinical outcomes in various lung disease groups. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is fast approaching chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as the number one indication for lung transplantation worldwide. Our aim was to assess whether frailty is a predictor of mortality in patients with ILD referred for lung transplantation in an Australian cohort. Methods. Consecutive patients with ILD referred or on the waiting list for lung transplantation from May 2013 to December 2017 underwent frailty assessment using the modified Fried's frailty phenotype. Frailty was defined as a positive response to >= 3 of the following 5 components: weak grip strength, slowed walking speed, poor appetite, physical inactivity, and exhaustion. Results. One hundred patients (82 male:18 female; age, 59 +/- 7 y; range, 30-70) underwent frailty assessment. Twenty-four of 100 (24%) were assessed as frail. Frailty was associated with anemia, hypoalbuminemia, low creatinine, and the use of supplemental oxygen (all P < 0.05). Frailty was independent of age, gender, measures of pulmonary dysfunction (Pao(2), forced vital capacity percentage predicted, total lung capacity, total lung capacity percentage predicted, Dlco, or Dlco percentage predicted), cognitive impairment, or depression. Frailty and Dlco % predicted were independent predictors of increased all-cause mortality: 1-year actuarial survival was 86 +/- 4% in the nonfrail group compared with 58 +/- 10% for the frail group (P = 0.002). Conclusions. Frailty is common among patients referred for lung transplant with a diagnosis of ILD and is associated with a marked increase in mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据