4.4 Article

Simple frailty score predicts postoperative complications across surgical specialties

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 206, 期 4, 页码 544-550

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.03.012

关键词

Geriatric surgery; Preoperative risk assessment; Surgical morbidity

类别

资金

  1. Paul B. Beeson Award [NIA K23AG034632]
  2. Dennis W. Jahnigen Award
  3. American Geriatrics Society
  4. National Institutes of Health [K24-HL-089223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to determine the relationship between preoperative frailty and the occurrence of postoperative complications after colorectal and cardiac operations. METHODS: Patients 65 years or older undergoing elective colorectal or cardiac surgery were enrolled. Seven baseline frailty traits were measured preoperatively: Katz score less than or equal to 5, Timed Up and Go test greater than or equal to 15 seconds, Charlson Index greater than or equal to 3, anemia less than 35%, Mini-Cog score less than or equal to 3, albumin less than 3.4 g/dL, and 1 or more falls within 6 months. Patients were categorized by the number of positive traits as follows: non-frail: 0 to 1 traits, prefrail: 2 to 3 traits, and frail: 4 or more traits. RESULTS: Two hundred one subjects (age 74 +/- 6 years) were studied. Preoperative frailty was associated with increased postoperative complications after colorectal (nonfrail: 21%, prefrail: 40%, frail: 58%; P = .016) and cardiac operations (nonfrail: 17%, prefrail: 28%, frail: 56%; P < .001). This finding in both groups was independent of advancing age. Frail individuals in both groups had longer hospital stays and higher 30-day readmission rates. Receiver operating characteristic curves examining frailty's ability to forecast complications were colorectal (.702, P = .004) and cardiac (. 711, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A simple preoperative frailty score defines older adults at higher risk for postoperative complications across surgical specialties. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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