Rendimiento de tres escalas de fragilidad para predecir resultados adversos a 30 días en los pacientes mayores dados de alta en los servicios de urgencias / Performance of 3 frailty scales for predicting adverse outcomes at 30 days in older patients discharged from emergency departments

Objetivo: Comparar la capacidad de tres escalas de fragilidad, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Functional Index eMergency (FIM) e Identification Senior at Risk (ISAR), para predecir resultados adversos (RA) a 30 días en los pacientes mayores dados de alta desde el servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). Método: Análisis secundario del registro FRAIL-Madrid que incluyó pacientes $ 75 años dados de alta de 10 SUH de Madrid durante un periodo de 3 meses entre 2018 y 2019. Se definió fragilidad como CFS $ 4, FIM $ 2 e ISAR $ 3. Las variables de resultado fueron revisita en urgencias, hospitalización, deterioro funcional, muerte y la variable compuesta por algún RA de los anteriores en los 30 días posteriores al alta del SUH. Resultados: Se incluyeron 619 pacientes, la edad media fue de 84 años (DE 7), 59,1% eran mujeres. Hubo 339 pacientes (54,8%) identificados como frágiles en el SUH según CFS $ 4, 386 (62,4%) según FIM $ 2 y 301 (48,6%) según ISAR $ 3. Hubo 226 pacientes (36,5%) que presentaron algún RA a los 30 días tras el alta (21,5% revisita, 12,6% hospitalización, 18,4% deterioro funcional y 3,6% muerte). El área bajo la curva (ABC) de la escala CFS fue de 0,66 (0,62-0,70; p = 0,022), de FIM 0,67 (0,62-0,71; p = 0,021) y de ISAR 0,64 (0,60-0,69; p = 0,023). La presencia de fragilidad fue un factor independiente de presentar algún RA a los 30 días tras el alta (CFS $ 4 ORa 3,18 [IC 95% 2,02-5,01, p < 0,001], FIM $ 2 ORa 3,49 [IC 95% 2,15-5,66, p < 0,001] e ISAR $ 3 ORa 2,46 [IC 95% 1,60-3,79, p < 0,001]). Conclusiones: Las tres escalas estudiadas –CFS, FIM, ISAR– son útiles y tienen una capacidad similar para identificar al paciente mayor frágil dado de alta del SUH con alto riesgo de presentar RA (muerte, deterioro funcional, hospitalización o revisita al SUH) a los 30 días. (AU)

Objective: To compare the ability of 3 frailty scales (the Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS], the Functional Index – eMergency [FIM], and the Identification of Seniors at Risk [ISAR] scale) to predict adverse outcomes at 30 days in older patients discharged from hospital emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Secondary analysis of data from the FRAIL-Madrid registry of patients aged 75 years or older who were discharged from Madrid EDs over a period of 3 months in 2018 and 2019. Frailty was defined by a CFS score over 4, a FIM score over 2, or an ISAR score over 3. The outcome variables were revisits to an ED, hospitalization, functionaldecline, death, and a composite variable of finding any of the previously named variables within 30 days of discharge. Results: A total of 619 patients were studied. The mean (SD) age was 84 (7) years, and 59.1% were women. The CFS identified as frail a total of 339 patients (54.8%), the FIM 386 (62.4%), and the ISAR 301 (48.6%). An adverse outcome occurred within 30 days in 226 patients (36.5%): 21.5% revisited, 12.6% were hospitalized, 18.4% experienced functional decline, and 3.6% died. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: CFS, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.70; P = .022); FIM, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71; P = .021), and ISAR, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69; P = .023). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) showed that frailty was an independent risk factor for presenting anyof the named adverse outcomes: aOR for CFS >4, 3.18 (95% CI, 2.02-5.01), P < .001; aOR for FIM > 2, 3.49 (95% CI, 2.15-5.66), P < .001; and aOR for ISAR >3, 2.46 (95% CI, 1.60-3.79), P < .001. Conclusions: All 3 scales studied — the CFS, the FIM and the ISAR — are useful for identifying frail older patients at high risk of developing an adverse outcome (death, functional decline, hospitalization, or revisiting the ED) within 30 days after discharge. (AU)

Prediction of Emergency Department Re-Visits in Older Patients by the Identification of Senior at Risk (ISAR) Screening.

The "Identification of Seniors at Risk" (ISAR) screening is a tool to identify seniors at risk of adverse outcomes. We investigated whether seniors with a positive ISAR screening have an increased risk of Emergency Department (ED) re-visits and health-service costs. In a pilot project, we enrolled 96 ED patients (≥70 years) who received an ISAR screening in the ED. We compared the rate of ED re-visits and in-hospital costs between ISAR positive (≥2 pts) and ISAR negative (<2 pts) patients. In some patients, a geriatrician performed a single Geriatric Consultation (GC) during the ED stay to assess older patients' needs.32% of the study population had an unplanned ED re-visit (31 of 96). Fifty patients were ISAR positive (52%) and showed an increased risk of ED re-visits compared with ISAR negative patients (dds ratio (OR) 6.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-21.0, p = 0.001). The positive ISAR screening tool fairly predicted ED re-visits in seniors (area under the curve (AUC) 0.711). A single GC during the ED stay did not reduce the risk of unplanned ED re-visits in ISAR positive patients (p = 0.80) ISAR positive patients with GC did not have higher in-hospital costs than ISAR negative patients without GC. Based on these findings, we aim to establish a comprehensive outpatient geriatric assessment program to identify relevant risk factors for ED re-visits and to recommend preventive strategies in ISAR positive ED seniors.