4.7 Article

Frailty is independently associated with mortality in 11 001 patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 311-318

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15821

关键词

-

资金

  1. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation Career Development Award [568735]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The prevalence of older adults with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is increasing. Frailty is an important predictor of outcomes in many chronic disease states. The implications of frailty have not been well-delineated in IBD. Aims To report the prevalence of a frailty-associated diagnosis and determine the association between frailty and mortality in a cohort of IBD patients. Methods In a cohort of 11 001 IBD patients, we applied a validated definition of frailty using International Classification of Disease codes. We compared frail IBD patients to those without a frailty-related code (fit). We constructed multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for clinically pertinent confounders (age, gender, race, IBD type, follow-up, IBD-related surgery, >= 1 comorbidity in the Charlson comorbidity index [CCI], and immunosuppression use) to determine whether frailty predicts mortality. Results A total of 675 (6%) IBD patients had a frailty-related diagnosis. The prevalence of frailty increased with age, rising from 4% in 20-29 year olds to 25% in patients 90 years or older. The most prevalent frailty diagnosis was protein-energy malnutrition. The strongest predictors of frailty were non-IBD comorbidity, all-cause and IBD-related, hospitalisations. Frailty remained independently associated with mortality after adjusting for age, sex, duration of follow-up, comorbidity, need for IBD-related surgery and immunosuppression (OR: 2.90, 95% CI: 2.29-3.68). Conclusions Frailty is prevalent in IBD patients and increases with age. Frailty nearly triples the odds of mortality for IBD patients. Risk stratifying patients by frailty may improve outcomes.

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

4.7
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