Validation of "(fr)AGILE": a quick tool to identify multidimensional frailty in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Several tools have been proposed and validated to operationally define frailty. Recently, the Italian Frailty index (IFi), an Italian modified version of Frailty index, has been validated but its use in clinical practice is limited by long time of administration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to create and validate a quick version of the IFi (AGILE). METHODS: Validation study was performed by administering IFi and AGILE, after a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in 401 subjects aged 65 or over (77 ± 7 years). AGILE was a 10-items tool created starting from the more predictive items of the four domains of frailty investigated by IFi (mental, physical, socioeconomic and nutritional). AGILE scores were stratified in light, moderate and severe frailty. At 24 months of follow-up, death, disability (taking into account an increase in ADL lost ≥1 from the baseline) and hospitalization were considered. Area under curve (AUC) was evaluated for both IFi and AGILE. RESULTS: Administration time was 9.5 ± 3.8 min for IFi administered after a CGA, and 2.4 ± 1.2 min for AGILE, regardless of CGA (p < 0.001). With increasing degree of frailty, prevalence of mortality increased progressively from 6.5 to 41.8% and from 9.0 to 33.3%, disability from 16.1 to 64.2% and from 22.1 to 59.8% and hospitalization from 17.2 to 58.7% and from 27.0 to 52.2% with AGILE and IFi, respectively (p = NS). Relative Risk for each unit of increase in AGILE was 56, 44 and 24% for mortality, disability and hospitalization, respectively and was lower for IFi (8, 7 and 4% for mortality, disability and hospitalization, respectively). The AUC was higher in AGILE vs. IFi for mortality (0.729 vs. 0.698), disability (0.715 vs. 0.682) and hospitalization (0.645 vs. 0.630). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that AGILE is a rapid and effective tool for screening multidimensional frailty, able to predict mortality, disability and hospitalization, especially useful in care settings that require reliable assessment instruments with short administration time.

Syncope and Epilepsy coexist in 'possible' and 'drug-resistant' epilepsy (Overlap between Epilepsy and Syncope Study - OESYS).

BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis between syncope and epilepsy in patients with transient loss of consciousness of uncertain etiology is still unclear. Thus, the aim of the present work is to evaluate the prevalence of syncope in patients with "possible" or "drug-resistant" epilepsy. METHODS: The Overlap between Epilepsy and SYncope Study (OESYS) is a multicenter prospective observational study designed to estimate the prevalence of syncope in patients followed in Epilepsy Centers for "possible" or "drug-resistant" epilepsy and assessed according the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines of syncope diagnosis. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were evaluated; 63 (58.9%) had possible and 44 (41.1%) drug-resistant epilepsy. A final diagnosis of isolated syncope was in 45 patients (42.1%), all with possible epilepsy (45/63, 71.4%). Isolated epilepsy was found in 21 patients (19.6%) and it was more frequent in the drug-resistant than in the possible epilepsy group (34.1% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.002). More importantly, syncope and epilepsy coexisted in 37.4% of all patients but the coexistence was more frequent among patients with drug-resistant than possible epilepsy (65.9% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated syncope was diagnosed in ≈ 70% of patients with possible epilepsy. Syncope and epilepsy coexisted in ≈ 20% of patients with possible and in ≈ 60% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. These findings highlight the need of ESC guidelines of syncope approach in patients with possible and drug-resistant epilepsy.

Physical vs. multidimensional frailty in older adults with and without heart failure.

AIMS: The assessment of frailty in older adults with heart failure (HF) is still debated. Here, we compare the predictive role and the diagnostic accuracy of physical vs. multidimensional frailty assessment on mortality, disability, and hospitalization in older adults with and without HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1077 elderly (≥65 years) outpatients were evaluated with the physical (phy-Fi) and multidimensional (m-Fi) frailty scores and according to the presence or the absence of HF. Mortality, disability, and hospitalizations were assessed at baseline and after a 24 month follow-up. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that, compared with phy-Fi score, m-Fi score was more predictive of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05 vs. 0.66], disability (HR = 1.02 vs. 0.89), and hospitalization (HR = 1.03 vs. 0.96) in the absence and even more in the presence of HF (HR = 1.11 vs. 0.63, 1.06 vs. 0.98, and 1.14 vs. 1.03, respectively). The area under the curve indicated a better diagnostic accuracy with m-Fi score than with phy-Fi score for mortality, disability, and hospitalizations, both in absence (0.782 vs. 0.649, 0.763 vs. 0.695, and 0.732 vs. 0.666, respectively) and in presence of HF (0.824 vs. 0.625, 0.886 vs. 0.793, and 0.812 vs. 0.688, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The m-Fi score is able to predict mortality, disability, and hospitalizations better than the phy-Fi score, not only in absence but also in presence of HF. Our data also demonstrate that the m-Fi score has better diagnostic accuracy than the phy-Fi score. Thus, the use of the m-FI score should be considered for the assessment of frailty in older HF adults.