Frailty assessment tools for use by surgeons when evaluating older adults prior to surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite growing evidence, uncertainty persists about which frailty assessment tools are best suited for routine perioperative care. We aim to understand which frailty assessment tools perform well and are feasible to implement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a registered protocol following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA), we will conduct a scoping review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Guide for Scoping Reviews and reported using PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations. We will develop a comprehensive search strategy with information specialists using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist, and implement this across relevant databases from 2005 to 13 October 2021 and updated prior to final review publication. We will include all studies evaluating a frailty assessment tool preoperatively in patients 65 years or older undergoing intracavitary, non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude tools not assessed in clinical practice, or using laboratory or radiologic values alone. After pilot testing, two reviewers will independently assess information sources for eligibility first by titles and abstracts, then by full-text review. Two reviewers will independently chart data from included full texts using a piloted standardised electronic data charting. In this scoping review process, we will (1) index frailty assessment tools evaluated in the preoperative clinical setting; (2) describe the level of investigation supporting each tool; (3) describe useability of each tool and (4) describe direct comparisons between tools. The results will inform ready application of frailty assessment tools in routine clinical practice by surgeons and other perioperative clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethic approval is not required for this secondary data analysis. This scoping review will be published in a peer-review journal. Results will be used to inform an ongoing implementation study focused on geriatric surgery to overcome the current lack of uptake of older adult-oriented care recommendations and ensure broad impact of research findings.

First-Trimester Abdominal Adipose Tissue Thickness to Predict Gestational Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the discriminative capacity of first-trimester subcutaneous (SATT), visceral (VATT), and total (TATT) adipose tissue thickness in predicting gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), including that requiring insulin. METHODS: We prospectively recruited a cohort of 1048 nulliparous women. Ultrasound images were used to determine abdominal SATT, VATT, and TATT at 11 to 14 weeks' gestation. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict GDM, as well as insulin-requiring GDM. Model discrimination was expressed as area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: SATT (AUC 0.66, 95% CI 0.59-0.73), VATT (AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.73), and TATT (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76) were each associated with subsequent GDM. The respective AUC values for insulin-requiring GDM were 0.70 (95% CI 0.61-0.79), 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.82), and 0.76 (95% CI 0.67-0.84). At a false-positive rate of 10%, the detection rate for insulin-requiring GDM was 19% for maternal age ≥35 years, 31% for a BMI ≥31.6 kg/m2, and 31% for TATT ≥61 mm, increasing to 42% in the model comprising all three measures. CONCLUSION: First-trimester ultrasound measurement of adipose tissue is associated with a higher chance of developing GDM, especially insulin-requiring GDM.

Comparative Study of Abdominal Versus Transvaginal Ultrasound for Uterine Artery Doppler Velocimetry at 11 to 13 Weeks.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the first-trimester uterine artery pulsatility index (PI) measured by abdominal and transvaginal ultrasound (US). METHODS: We performed a prospective study of singleton pregnant women recruited at 11 to 13 weeks' gestation. The mean uterine artery PI was obtained by abdominal followed by transvaginal US. The mean of the left and right uterine artery PIs was used, and differences between approaches were computed. The intraclass correlation coefficient and a Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the two approaches. RESULTS: Data were available for 940 participants, including 928 (99%) with uterine artery PIs obtained on both uterine sides. The mean uterine artery PI decreased with gestational age in both approaches (P < .001). We observed a moderate correlation between abdominal and transvaginal mean uterine artery PIs (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.75). Values obtained by abdominal US (median, 1.70, interquartile range, 1.35 to 2.09) were greater than those obtained by transvaginal US (median, 1.65; interquartile range, 1.37 to 1.99). There was a significant increase in differences as average measurements became higher (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The first-trimester mean uterine artery PI decreases with gestational age in both approaches. Abdominal US could be associated with greater uterine artery PI values than transvaginal US, especially at higher measurements. The first-trimester uterine artery PI for prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes should be adjusted for gestational age and possibly for the US approach.