Frailty as an instrument for evaluation of elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A follow-up after more than 5 years

Abstract

Background

There is a growing body of evidence on the relevance of using frailty measures also in a cardiovascular context. The estimated time to death is crucial in clinical decision-making in cardiology. However, data on the importance of frailty in long-term mortality are very scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the prognostic value of frailty on mortality at long-term follow-up of more than 5 years in patients 75 years or older hospitalised for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We hypothesised that frailty is independently associated with long-term mortality.

Design

This was a prospective, observational study conducted at three centres.

Methods and results

Frailty was assessed according to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale (CFS). Of 307 patients, 149 (48.5%) were considered frail according to the study instrument (degree 5–7 on the scale). The long-term all-cause mortality of more than 5 years (median 6.7 years) was significantly higher among frail patients (128, 85.9%) than non-frail patients (85, 53.8%), (P < 0.001). In Cox regression analysis, frailty was independently associated with mortality from the index hospital admission to the end of follow-up (hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.51–2.81; P < 0.001) together with age (P < 0.001), ejection fraction (P = 0.012) and Charlson comorbidity index (P = 0.018).

Conclusions

In elderly non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, frailty was independently associated with all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up of more than 6 years. The combined use of frailty and comorbidity may be the ultimate risk prediction concept in the context of cardiovascular patients with complex needs.

Keywords

Elderly frailty NSTEMI long-term mortality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

World Health Organization. Fact sheet: Ageing and health 2015. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs404/en/ (2015, accessed 17 October 2017).

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Patients in specialised care. Report for the National Board of Health and Welfare. Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Health and Welfare, 2009. (in Swedish).

American Heart Association Council. Acute coronary care in the elderly, part 1. Circulation 2007; 115: 2549–2569.

Tinetti

Bogardus

Jr Agostini

. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2870–2874.

Rothwell

. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 2005; 365: 82–93.

Boyd

Darer

Boult

et al.

Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA 2005; 294: 716–724.

Fried

Tangen

Walston

et al.

Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: 146–156.

Rockwood

Song

MacKnight

et al.

A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005; 173: 489–495.

Afilalo

Alexander

Mack

et al.

Frailty assessment in the cardiovascular care of older adults. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 747–762.

10.

Morley

Vellas

van Kan

et al.

Frailty consensus: a call to action. JAMDA 2013; 14: 392–397.

11.

Vigorito

Abreu

Ambrosetti

et al.

Frailty and cardiac rehabilitation: a call to action from the EAPC cardiac rehabilitation section. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2017; 24: 577–590.

12.

White

Westerhout

Alexander

et al.

Frailty is associated with worse outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: insights from the TaRgeted platelet Inhibition to cLarify the Optimal strateGy to medicallY manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2016; 5: 231–242.

13.

The European Society of Cardiology 2015. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2016; 3: 267–315.

14.

Alonso Salinas

Sanmartín Fernández

Pascual Izco

et al.

Frailty is a short-term prognostic marker in acute coronary syndrome of elderly patients. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2016; 5: 434–440.

15.

Ekerstad

Swahn

Janzon

et al.

Frailty is independently associated with short-term outcomes for elderly patients with non-st-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2011; 124: 2397–2404.

16.

Ekerstad

Swahn

Janzon

et al.

Frailty is independently associated with 1-year mortality for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2014; 21: 1216–1224.

17.

Shrout

Fleiss

. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.

18.

Burdock

Fleiss

Hardesty

. A new view of interobserver agreement. Personnel Psychol 1963; 16: 373–384.

19.

Lagerqvist

Husted

Kontny

et al.

5-Year outcomes in the FRISC-II randomised trial of an invasive versus a non-invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a follow-up study. Lancet 2006; 368: 998–1004.

20.

Thygesen K, Alpert JS and White HD. Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Redefinition of Myocardial Infarction. Universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2007; 116: 2634–2653.

21.

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Swedish national guidelines for stroke care 2018. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2018/2018-3-11 (2018, accessed 13 September 2018).

22.

Charlson

Pompei

Ales

et al.

A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–383.

23.

Frenkel

Jongerius

Mandjes-van Uitert

et al.

Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in acutely hospitalized elderly adults: a prospective cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014; 62: 342–346.

24.

Allison

. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application, Cary, NC: Wiley-SAS, 2001.

25.

Radovanovic

Seifert

Urban

et al.

Validity of Charlson Comorbidity Index in patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome. Insights from the nationwide AMIS Plus registry 2002–2012. Heart 2014; 100: 288–294.

26.

Rashid

Kwok

Gale

et al.

Impact of co-morbid burden on mortality in patients with coronary heart disease, heart failure, and cerebrovascular accident: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2017; 3: 20–36.

27.

The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Severely frail elderly patients and national guidelines. How the guidelines can be adjusted to meet the needs of severely frail elderly patients. Report for the National Board of Health and Welfare. Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Health and Welfare, 2013. (in Swedish).

28.

Singh

Rihal

Lennon

et al.

Influence of frailty and health status on outcomes in patients with coronary disease undergoing percutaneous revascularization. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2011; 4: 496–502.

29.

Shimura

Yamamoto

Kano

et al.

Impact of the Clinical Frailty Scale on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2017; 135: 2013–2024.

30.

Pilotto

Cella

Pilotto

et al.

Three decades of comprehensive geriatric assessment: evidence coming from different healthcare settings and specific clinical conditions. JAMDA 2017; 18: 192.e1–192.e11.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB