Performance of Edmonton Frail Scale on frailty assessment: its association with multi-dimensional geriatric conditions assessed with specific screening tools
Performance of Edmonton Frail Scale on frailty assessment: its association with multi-dimensional geriatric conditions assessed with specific screening tools
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12877-016-0382-3
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-04
期刊：
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Rondanelli, Mariangela
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Perna, Simone;Francis, Matthew D'Arcy;Rondanelli, Mariangela
背景资料：本研究的目的是评估性能的埃德蒙顿虚弱量表（EFS）与多维度的条件下评估与特定的筛选工具，并探讨脆弱的患病率gender.Methods：我们招募了366例住院患者（女性\男性：251\115），平均年龄81.5岁。对患者进行EFS评估其虚弱程度。通过简易精神状态检查量表（MMSE）、健康状况量表、认知功能量表（以疾病数量评价）、功能独立性（Barthel指数和日常活动）BI、ADL、IADL）、药物使用（每天服用药物计数）、简易营养评估（MNA）、老年抑郁量表（GDS）、骨骼肌减少指数（SMI）、结果：根据EFS标准，19.7%的受试者属于非虚弱，66.4%属于明显虚弱，13.9%属于严重虚弱。EFS评分与认知功能相关（MMSE：β = 0.980; p < 0.01），功能独立性（ADL：β = -0.512; p < 0.00）;（IADL：β = -0.338; p < 0.01）;使用药物（β = 0.110; p < 0.01）;营养（MNA：β = -0.413; p < 0.01）;情绪（GDS：β = -0.324; p < 0.01）;功能性能（手柄：β =-0.114，p < 0.01）（BI：β = -0.037，p < 0.01），但与合并症数量无关（β = 0.108; p = 0.052）。在乳腺癌患者与非乳腺癌患者中，两组间的平均EFS评分没有差异（女性：p = 0.365;男性：p = 0.088），而在肉瘤患者与非肉瘤患者中，女性有显著差异：p <0.05。本研究认为，用EFS测量脆弱性是有帮助的和性能的工具分层的脆弱性在一组机构的老年人。事实上，EFS已被证明与几种老年疾病有关，如独立性，药物假设，情绪，精神，功能和营养状况。
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) on frailty assessment in association with multi-dimensional conditions assessed with specific screening tools and to explore the prevalence of frailty by gender.Methods: We enrolled 366 hospitalised patients (women\men: 251\115), mean age 81.5 years. The EFS was given to the patients to evaluate their frailty. Then we collected data concerning cognitive status through Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), health status (evaluated with the number of diseases), functional independence (Barthel Index and Activities Daily Living; BI, ADL, IADL), use of drugs (counting of drugs taken every day), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Skeletal Muscle Index of sarcopenia (SMI), osteoporosis and functionality (Handgrip strength).Results: According with the EFS, the 19.7% of subjects were classified as non frail, 66.4% as apparently vulnerable and 13.9% with severe frailty. The EFS scores were associated with cognition (MMSE: beta = 0.980; p < 0.01), functional independence (ADL: beta = -0.512; p < 0.00); (IADL: beta = -0.338; p < 0.01); use of medications (beta = 0.110; p < 0.01); nutrition (MNA: beta = -0.413; p < 0.01); mood (GDS: beta = -0.324; p < 0.01); functional performance (Handgrip: beta = -0.114, p < 0.01) (BI: beta = -0.037; p < 0.01), but not with number of comorbidities (beta = 0.108; p = 0.052). In osteoporotic patients versus not-osteoporotic patients the mean EFS score did not differ between groups (women: p = 0.365; men: p = 0.088), whereas in Sarcopenic versus not-Sarcopenic patients, there was a significant differences in women: p < 0.05.Conclusions: This study suggests that measuring frailty with EFS is helpful and performance tool for stratifying the state of fragility in a group of institutionalized elderly. As matter of facts the EFS has been shown to be associated with several geriatric conditions such independence, drugs assumption, mood, mental, functional and nutritional status.