RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disproportionally affects older adults, the use of conventional triage tools in acute care settings ignores the key aspects of vulnerability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the usefulness of adding a rapid vulnerability screening to an illness acuity tool to predict mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Large university hospital dedicated to providing COVID-19 care. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included are 1,428 consecutive inpatients aged ≥50 years. METHODS: Vulnerability was assessed using the modified version of PRO-AGE score (0-7; higher = worse), a validated and easy-to-administer tool that rates physical impairment, recent hospitalisation, acute mental change, weight loss and fatigue. The baseline covariates included age, sex, Charlson comorbidity score and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), a well-known illness acuity tool. Our outcome was time-to-death within 60 days of admission. RESULTS: The patients had a median age of 66 years, and 58% were male. The incidence of 60-day mortality ranged from 22% to 69% across the quartiles of modified PRO-AGE. In adjusted analysis, compared with modified PRO-AGE scores 0-1 ('lowest quartile'), the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 60-day mortality for modified PRO-AGE scores 2-3, 4 and 5-7 were 1.4 (1.1-1.9), 2.0 (1.5-2.7) and 2.8 (2.1-3.8), respectively. The modified PRO-AGE predicted different mortality risk levels within each stratum of NEWS and improved the discrimination of mortality prediction models. CONCLUSIONS: Adding vulnerability to illness acuity improved accuracy of predicting mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Combining tools such as PRO-AGE and NEWS may help stratify the risk of mortality from COVID-19.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Avaliação Geriátrica/métodos , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Idoso , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/terapia , Disfunção Cognitiva/diagnóstico , Disfunção Cognitiva/etiologia , Fadiga/diagnóstico , Feminino , Estado Funcional , Humanos , Masculino , Mortalidade , Prognóstico , SARS-CoV-2 , Triagem/métodos , Populações Vulneráveis , Redução de PesoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Limited time and resources hinder the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in acute contexts. We investigated the predictive value of a 10-minute targeted geriatric assessment (10-TaGA) for adverse outcomes over 6 months among acutely ill older outpatients. METHODS: Prospective study comprising 819 acutely ill outpatients (79.2 ± 8.4 years; 63% women) in need of intensive management (eg, intravenous therapy, laboratory test, radiology) to avoid hospitalization. The 10-TaGA provided a validated measure of cumulative deficits. Previously established 10-TaGA cutoffs defined low (0-0.29), medium (0.30-0.39), and high (0.40-1) risks. To estimate whether 10-TaGA predicts new dependence in activities of daily living and hospitalization over the next 6 months, we used hazard models (considering death as competing risk) adjusted for standard risk factors (sociodemographic factors, Charlson comorbidity index, and physician estimates of risk). Differences among areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) examined whether 10-TaGA improves outcome discrimination when added to standard risk factors. RESULTS: Medium- and high-risk patients, according to 10-TaGA, presented a higher incidence of new activities of daily living dependence (21% vs 7%, adjusted subhazard ratio [aHR] = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.3-4.5; 40% vs 7%, aHR = 5.0, 95% CI = 2.8-8.7, respectively) and hospitalization (27% vs 13%, aHR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2-3.3; 37% vs 13%, aHR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.8-4.6, respectively) than low-risk patients. The 10-TaGA remarkably improved the discrimination of models that incorporated standard risk factors to predict new activities of daily living dependence (AUROC = 0.76 vs 0.71, p < .001) and hospitalization (AUROC = 0.71 vs 0.68, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The 10-TaGA is a practical and efficient comprehensive geriatric assessment tool that improves the prediction of adverse outcomes among acutely ill older outpatients.
Assuntos
Atividades Cotidianas , Avaliação Geriátrica , Hospitalização , Doença Aguda , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Estudos Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Physical frailty is a powerful tool for identifying nondisabled individuals at high risk of adverse outcomes. The extent to which cognitive impairment in those without dementia adds value to physical frailty in detecting high-risk individuals remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of combining physical frailty and cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND) on the risk of basic activities of daily living (ADL) dependence and death over 8 years. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The Health and Retirement Study (HRS). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7338 community-dwelling people, 65 years or older, without dementia and ADL dependence at baseline (2006-2008). Follow-up assessments occurred every 2 years until 2014. MEASUREMENTS: The five components of the Cardiovascular Health Study defined physical frailty. A well-validated HRS method, including verbal recall, series of subtractions, and backward count task, assessed cognition. Primary outcomes were time to ADL dependence and death. Hazard models, considering death as a competing risk, associated physical frailty and CIND with outcomes after adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, depression, and smoking status. RESULTS: The prevalence of physical frailty was 15%; CIND, 19%; and both deficits, 5%. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, combining these factors identified older adults at an escalating risk for ADL dependence (no deficit = 14% [reference group]; only CIND = 26%, sub-hazard ratio [sHR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-1.8; only frail = 33%, sHR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.4-2.0; both deficits = 46%, sHR = 2.0, 95%CI = 1.6-2.6) and death (no deficit = 21%; only CIND = 41%, HR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4-1.9; only frail = 56%, HR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.7-2.7; both deficits = 66%, HR = 2.6, 95% CI = 2.0-3.3) over 8-year follow-up. Adding the cognitive measure to models that already included physical frailty alone increased accuracy in identifying those at higher risk of ADL dependence (Harrell's concordance [C], 0.74 vs 0.71; P < .001) and death (Harrell's C, 0.70 vs 0.67; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Physical frailty and CIND are independent predictors of incident disability and death. Because together physical frailty and CIND identify vulnerable older adults better, optimal risk assessment should supplement measures of physical frailty with measures of cognitive function. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:477-483, 2019.