2020
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-020-01735-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Emergency Surgery Frailty Index (EmSFI): development and internal validation of a novel simple bedside risk score for elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery

Abstract: Background Frailty assessment has acquired an increasing importance in recent years and it has been demonstrated that this vulnerable profile predisposes elderly patients to a worse outcome after surgery. Therefore, it becomes paramount to perform an accurate stratification of surgical risk in elderly undergoing emergency surgery. Study design 1024 patients older than 65 years who required urgent surgical procedures were prospectively recruited from 38 Ita… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Frailty scores that require patient interview or physical assessment can be burdensome for the ED clinician to administer and could delay care for a patient's presenting ED complaint. Furthermore, unlike other frailty measures that can be disease or specialty specific like the Carolina Frailty Index or the Emergency Surgery Frailty Index (specific for emergency surgery patients), the CAN score and the VA‐FI are broadly applicable, therefore providing a source of common ground among specialties for patients requiring multidisciplinary care 42,43 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Frailty scores that require patient interview or physical assessment can be burdensome for the ED clinician to administer and could delay care for a patient's presenting ED complaint. Furthermore, unlike other frailty measures that can be disease or specialty specific like the Carolina Frailty Index or the Emergency Surgery Frailty Index (specific for emergency surgery patients), the CAN score and the VA‐FI are broadly applicable, therefore providing a source of common ground among specialties for patients requiring multidisciplinary care 42,43 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, unlike other frailty measures that can be disease or specialty specific like the Carolina Frailty Index or the Emergency Surgery Frailty Index (specific for emergency surgery patients), the CAN score and the VA-FI are broadly applicable, therefore providing a source of common ground among specialties for patients requiring multidisciplinary care. 42,43 In terms of application to VA EDs, we envision using the CAN score and the VA-FI in conjunction. The CAN score is readily available to all VA patients who receive primary care within the VA (which is the vast majority of the VA ED population).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite many attempts to evaluate and predict frailty in older patients in the last decades, a few frailty evaluation tools could be applied to older patients undergoing emergency surgery [ 16 , 21 ]. Since most older patients undergoing emergency surgery are vulnerable to surgical stress and are likely to develop postoperative complications, predicting or evaluating the preoperative frailty of these patients clinically is very important [ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The frailty profile was investigated by the 5-modified Frailty Index (5-mFI) and the Emergency Surgery Frailty Index (EmSFI). According to other literature reports, a 5-mFI value ≥0.4 and an EmSFI value ≥4 were adopted as a cut-off to define a patient as frailty ( 31 , 32 ), but when performing statistical analysis, to simplify and make the results comparable with literature, only the 5-mFI ≥0.4 score was used for considering the frailty positive population. Postoperative complications have been reported and categorized according to the Clavien–Dindo (C–D) classification system by the study leader in each of the participating centers ( 33 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%