CLiP, catheter and line position dataset.

Correct catheter position is crucial to ensuring appropriate function of the catheter and avoid complications. This paper describes a dataset consisting of 50,612 image level and 17,999 manually labelled annotations from 30,083 chest radiographs from the publicly available NIH ChestXRay14 dataset with manually annotated and segmented endotracheal tubes (ETT), nasoenteric tubes (NET) and central venous catheters (CVCs).

Development of a Frailty Index from Routine Hospital Data in Perioperative and Critical Care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frailty is common in surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) populations, yet it is not routinely measured. Frailty indices are able to quantify this condition across a range of health deficits. We aimed to develop a frailty index (FI) from routinely collected hospital data in a surgical and ICU population. DESIGN: Prospective observational single-center cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral metropolitan Australian hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 336 individuals aged 65 and older undergoing surgery or aged 50 and older admitted to the ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Routine admission health data were used to derive an FI comprising 36 health deficits. We examined the FI correlation with existing frailty tools (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] and Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS]) and assessed its predictive ability for negative outcomes including 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Median FI was .17 (interquartile range [IQR]) = .10-.24) for ICU patients and .17 (IQR = .11-.25) for surgical patients; maximum FI was .58, and 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.4-29.6) of patients overall were diagnosed with frailty (FI score ≥.25). Correlation was strong between the FI and the EFS: ρ = .76 (95% CI = .70-.83) for ICU patients and .71 (95% CI = .64-.78) for surgical patients, and the CFS was .77 (95% CI = .70-.84) for ICU patients and .72 (95% CI = .65-.79) for surgical patients. The FI had good discriminative ability for prediction of 30-day mortality in ICU patients (multivariate odds ratio for each increase in FI of .1 = 2.04 [95% CI = 1.19-3.48]), comparable with the performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score (ICU patients) and the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity score (surgical patients). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to construct an FI from hospital admission data in a cohort of critically ill and surgical patients.

Accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale for perioperative frailty screening: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Perioperative frailty increases postoperative complications, mortality, and new functional dependence. Despite this, routine perioperative frailty screening is not widespread. We aimed to assess the accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) as a screening tool prior to anesthesia, and to determine which health domains are affected by frailty. METHODS: In a prospective, single-centre observational study, we enrolled 218 patients aged ≥ 65 yr undergoing elective and emergency surgery. The screening performance of the CFS was compared with the Edmonton Frail Scale, including the effect in individual frailty domains, and outcomes including discharge location and mortality. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range] age of the enrolled subjects was 74 [69-80] yr and 24% of the patients were frail. The CFS and Edmonton scales were highly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.86), and in substantial agreement (kappa coefficient, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.94) indicating excellent discrimination for the CFS in predicting frailty status based on the Edmonton scale. Frail patients had higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.28 to 21.62), and were less likely to be discharged home. Frail patients had poorer health throughout frailty domains, including functional dependence (42% of frail vs 4% of non-frail patients; P < 0.001), malnutrition (48% vs 19%, P < 0.001), and poor physical performance (47% vs 7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The CFS is a valid and accurate tool to screen for perioperative frailty, which encompasses the spectrum of health-related domains.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La fragilité périopératoire augmente les complications postopératoires, la mortalité et une nouvelle dépendance fonctionnelle. Le dépistage de routine de la fragilité périopératoire n'est cependant pas une pratique répandue. Nous avions pour objectif d'évaluer la précision de l'échelle de mesure de fragilité CFS (pour Clinical Frailty Scale) comme outil de dépistage préanesthésique et de déterminer quels domaines de la santé étaient affectés par la fragilité. MéTHODE: Nous avons recruté 218 patients âgés de plus de 65 ans et subissant une chirurgie non urgente ou urgente dans notre étude observationnelle prospective et monocentrique. Les résultats du dépistage de la CFS ont été comparés à l'échelle de fragilité d'Edmonton (Edmonton Frail Scale), y compris en ce qui a trait à l'effet de la fragilité sur les domaines individuels de fragilité et aux résultats tels que la destination au congé et la mortalité. RéSULTATS: L'âge médian [écart interquartile] des patients recrutés était de 74 [69­80] ans et 24 % des patients étaient fragiles. Les échelles CFS et d'Edmonton avaient une forte corrélation (coefficient de corrélation de Spearman, 0,81; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,77 à 0,86) et étaient en accord substantiel (coefficient kappa, 0,76; IC 95 %, 0,70 à 0,81), avec une surface sous la courbe de fonction d'efficacité de l'observateur de 0,91 (IC 95 %, 0,86 à 0,94), indiquant une discrimination excellente de la CFS pour prédire l'état de fragilité fondé sur l'échelle d'Edmonton. Les patients fragiles souffraient d'une mortalité à 30 jours plus élevée (rapport de cotes, 5,26; IC 95 %, 1,28 à 21,62) et il était moins probable qu'ils reçoivent leur congé de l'hôpital à la maison. Les patients fragiles étaient en moins bonne santé dans tous les domaines de fragilité, notamment en dépendance fonctionnelle (42 % des patients fragiles vs 4 % des patients non fragiles; P < 0,001), en malnutrition (48 % vs 19 %, P < 0,001) et en mauvaise performance physique (47 % vs 7 %, P < 0,001). CONCLUSION: L'échelle CFS constitue un outil valable et précis pour dépister la fragilité périopératoire, qui englobe l'éventail des domaines liés à la santé.

Protocol for a prospective observational study to develop a frailty index for use in perioperative and critical care.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is of increasing importance to perioperative and critical care medicine, as the proportion of older patients increases globally. Evidence continues to emerge of the considerable impact frailty has on adverse outcomes from both surgery and critical care, which has led to a proliferation of different frailty measurement tools in recent years. Despite this, there remains a lack of easily implemented, comprehensive frailty assessment tools specific to these complex populations. Development of a frailty index using routinely collected hospital data, able to leverage the automated aspects of an electronic medical record, would aid risk stratification and benefit clinicians and patients alike. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective observational study. 150 intensive care unit (ICU) patients aged ≥50 years and 200 surgical patients aged ≥65 years will be enrolled. The primary objective is to develop a frailty index. Secondary objectives include assessing its ability to predict in-hospital mortality and/or discharge to a new non-home location; the performance of the frailty index in predicting postoperative and ICU complications, as well as health-related quality of life at 6 months; to compare the performance of the frailty index against existing frailty measurement and risk stratification tools; and to assess its modification by patients' health assets. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee(20 January 2017, HREC/16/MH/321). Dissemination will be via international and national anaesthetic and critical care conferences, and publication in the peer-reviewed literature.