4.3 Article

Impact of Frailty on Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

期刊

ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 100-104

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.11.017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Frailty is a global state that does not relate directly to comorbidities and is prev-alent among patients with vascular disease. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a rapid assess-ment tool to identify vulnerable and frail patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate whether the preoperative CFS score could be used to independently predict mortality and morbidity after elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional National Vascular Registry (NVR) data to identify all patients who underwent an elective open juxta or infrarenal AAA repair between January 2014 and December 2018. The NVR data set included preoperative risk factors, imag-ing findings, intraprocedural variables, and postprocedural outcomes. Results: A total of 184 patients were assessed using the CFS before they underwent elective open AAA repair. Among 26 (14%) individuals categorized as vulnerable using the CFS, there was no significant difference in age or preoperative cardiac and respiratory testing compared with nonfrail patients. However, vulnerable patients were significantly more likely to have a longer length of stay (12.2 days vs. 8.8 days, P-value 0.044), suffer from respiratory complica-tions (35% vs. 15%, P-value 0.022) and renal failure (23% vs. 6%, P-value 0.013), or die (23% vs. 2%, P-value 0.0003). The regression analysis identified a vulnerable frailty score to be the only significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio 1/4 36.7, P < 0.001), all other factors were not shown to be independent predictors. Conclusions: The CFS is a practical tool for assessing preoperative frailty among patients un-dergoing elective open AAA repair and can be used to predict mortality and morbidity after surgery.

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

4.3
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