Índice de Charlson versus índice de Barthel como predictor de mortalidad e institucionalización en una unidad geriátrica de agudos y media estancia / Barthel and Charlson indexes for the prognosis of mortality and institutionalization in hospitalized geriatric patients

Introducción Comparar la validez del índice de Barthel (IB), el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson (ICC) y, una variante de este último, el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson corregido por la edad (ICCE) en el pronóstico de mortalidad e institucionalización en pacientes geriátricos hospitalizados.Material y métodos Se realiza un estudio retrospectivo de todos los pacientes ingresados durante el año 2006 en una unidad de agudos y media estancia de un servicio de geriatría (n=343). Como variables independientes se recogieron el IB al ingreso (registrado en la historia clínica de los pacientes) y el ICC e ICCE recogidos a posteriori con la información disponible. La variable resultado fue la ocurrencia de muerte o la institucionalización al alta del paciente, recogiéndose valores de sensibilidad y especificidad para cada uno de los puntos de corte seleccionados de las escalas evaluadas, y elaborando una curva ROC para cada una de ellas, calculando el área bajo la curva (ABC) con su intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%. Resultados La muestra tenía una edad media de 82,3 años, con el 58,6% de mujeres. El ABC correspondiente al IB fue de 0,736 (IC del 95%=0,68–0,79), para el ICC fue de 0,61 (IC del 95%=0,55–0,67) y para el ICCE fue de 0,625 (IC del 95%=0,56–0,69), encontrándose diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre el ABC del IB frente al ABC de los otros dos índices (p<0,01).Conclusiones Como predictores de mortalidad e institucionalización, la validez del IB fue superior a la de los ICC (original y corregido por la edad). Por este motivo, el IB puede tener una mayor utilidad para el uso más adecuado de los recursos sanitarios disponibles(AU)

Introduction To compare the validity of the Barthel (BI) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) as well as the age-adjusted CCI for the prognosis of mortality and institutionalization in hospitalized geriatric patients.Material and methods A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate patients admitted to an acute care geriatric ward and mid-term care facility in 2006 (n=343). The independent variables were the admission BI (registered in the clinical history in all patients) and the CCI and the age-adjusted CCI, which were registered “a posteriori” using the available information. The outcome variable was mortality or institutionalization when the patient was discharged. The sensitivity and specificity values for each of the cut-off points selected from the scales analyzed were recorded and ROC curves were constructed for each of these points; the area under the curve (AUC) with a confidence interval (CI) of up to 95% was calculated.Results The mean age was 82.3 years (58.6% women). The AUC was 0.736 (95% CI=0.68–0.79) for the BI, 0.61 (95% CI=0.55–0.67) for the CCI and 0.625 (95% CI=0.56–0.69) for the age-adjusted CCI. Statistically significant differences were found among the AUC of the BI compared with that of the other two indexes (p<0.01).Conclusions As predictors of mortality and institutionalization, the BI was superior to the CCI and the age-adjusted CCI. The BI could therefore be more useful than the other two indexes when considering an adequate use of healthcare services (AU)

[Barthel and Charlson indexes for the prognosis of mortality and institutionalization in hospitalized geriatric patients]. / Indice de Charlson versus índice de Barthel como predictor de mortalidad e institucionalización en una unidad geriátrica de agudos y media estancia.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the validity of the Barthel (BI) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) as well as the age-adjusted CCI for the prognosis of mortality and institutionalization in hospitalized geriatric patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate patients admitted to an acute care geriatric ward and mid-term care facility in 2006 (n=343). The independent variables were the admission BI (registered in the clinical history in all patients) and the CCI and the age-adjusted CCI, which were registered "a posteriori" using the available information. The outcome variable was mortality or institutionalization when the patient was discharged. The sensitivity and specificity values for each of the cut-off points selected from the scales analyzed were recorded and ROC curves were constructed for each of these points; the area under the curve (AUC) with a confidence interval (CI) of up to 95% was calculated. RESULTS: The mean age was 82.3 years (58.6% women). The AUC was 0.736 (95% CI=0.68-0.79) for the BI, 0.61 (95% CI=0.55-0.67) for the CCI and 0.625 (95% CI=0.56-0.69) for the age-adjusted CCI. Statistically significant differences were found among the AUC of the BI compared with that of the other two indexes (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As predictors of mortality and institutionalization, the BI was superior to the CCI and the age-adjusted CCI. The BI could therefore be more useful than the other two indexes when considering an adequate use of healthcare services.