...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Nephrology >Frailty in end-stage renal disease: comparing patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives
【24h】

Frailty in end-stage renal disease: comparing patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives

机译:终末期肾脏疾病的虚弱:比较患者,护理人员和临床医生的观点

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Frailty is associated with poor outcomes for patients on dialysis and is traditionally measured using tools that assess physical impairment. Alternate measurement tools highlight cognitive and functional domains, requiring clinician, patient, and/or caregiver input. In this study, we compared frailty measures for incident dialysis patients that incorporate patient, clinician, and caregiver perspectives with an aim to contrast the measured prevalence of frailty using tools derived from different conceptual frameworks. Methods A prospective cohort study of incident dialysis patients was conducted between February 2014 and June 2015. Frailty was assessed at dialysis onset using: 1) modified definition of Fried Phenotype (Dialysis Morbidity Mortality Study definition, DMMS); 2) Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS); 3) Frailty Assessment Care Planning Tool (provides CFS grading, FACT-CFS); and 4) Frailty Index (FI). Measures were compared via correlation and sensitivity/specificity analyses. Results A total of 98 patients participated (mean age of 61?±?14?years). Participants were primarily Caucasian (91%), male (58%), and the majority started on hemodialysis (83%). The median score for both the CFS and FACT-CFS was 4 (interquartile range of 3–5). The mean FI score was 0.31 (standard deviation?±?0.16). The DMMS identified 78% of patients as frail. The FACT-CFS demonstrated highest correlation ( r =?0.71) with the FI, while the DMMS was most sensitive (97%, 100%) and a CFS?≥?5 most specific (100%, 77%) at corresponding FI cutoff values (>0.21, >0.45). Conclusions Frailty assessments of incident dialysis patients that include clinician, caregiver and patient perspectives have moderate to strong correlation with the FI. At specified FI cutoff values, the FACT-CFS and DMMS are highly sensitive measures of frailty. The CFS and FACT-CFS may represent viable alternative screening tools in dialysis patients.
机译:背景虚弱与透析患者的不良结局有关,传统上使用评估身体损伤的工具进行测量。替代的测量工具突出显示了认知和功能领域,需要临床医生,患者和/或护理人员输入。在这项研究中,我们比较了结合患者,临床医生和护理人员观点的事件透析患者的脆弱性测量,目的是使用衍生自不同概念框架的工具来对比测量的脆弱性患病率。方法在2014年2月至2015年6月之间进行了一项针对透析患者的前瞻性队列研究。在透析开始时,对脆弱性进行了评估:1)修改Fried表型的定义(透析发病率研究定义,DMMS); 2)临床脆弱量表(CFS); 3)脆弱评估护理计划工具(提供CFS分级,FACT-CFS); 4)脆弱指数(FI)。通过相关性和敏感性/特异性分析比较了指标。结果共有98例患者参加,平均年龄为61±14岁。参与者主要是白人(91%),男性(58%),并且大多数是从血液透析开始的(83%)。 CFS和FACT-CFS的中位数均为4(四分位间距为3-5)。 FI的平均得分为0.31(标准差±0.16)。 DMMS将78%的患者确定为虚弱。 FACT-CFS与FI的相关性最高(r =?0.71),而DMMS在相应的FI截止时最敏感(97%,100%),而CFS≥≥5的特异性最高(100%,77%)。值(> 0.21,> 0.45)。结论包括临床医生,护理人员和患者观点在内的事件透析患者的脆弱评估与FI有中等至强相关性。在指定的FI截止值处,FACT-CFS和DMMS是对脆弱性的高度敏感度量。 CFS和FACT-CFS可能代表透析患者中​​可行的替代筛查工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号