Two Years with COVID-19: The Electronic Frailty Index Identifies High-Risk Patients in the Stockholm GeroCovid Study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Introduction: Frailty, a measure of biological aging, has been linked to worse COVID-19 outcomes. However, as the mortality differs across the COVID-19 waves, it is less clear whether a medical record-based electronic frailty index (eFI) that we have previously developed for older adults could be used for risk stratification in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine the association of frailty with mortality, readmission, and length of stay in older COVID-19 patients and to compare the predictive accuracy of the eFI to other frailty and comorbidity measures. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records (EHRs) from nine geriatric clinics in Stockholm, Sweden, comprising 3,980 COVID-19 patients (mean age 81.6 years) admitted between March 2020 and March 2022. Frailty was assessed using a 48-item eFI developed for Swedish geriatric patients, the Clinical Frailty Scale, and the Hospital Frailty Risk Score. Comorbidity was measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We analyzed in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission using logistic regression, 30-day and 6-month mortality using Cox regression, and the length of stay using linear regression. Predictive accuracy of the logistic regression and Cox models was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Harrell’s C-statistic, respectively. Results: Across the study period, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased from 13.9% in the first wave to 3.6% in the latest (Omicron) wave. Controlling for age and sex, a 10% increment in the eFI was significantly associated with higher risks of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 2.95; 95% confidence interval = 2.42–3.62), 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.39; 2.08–2.74), 6-month mortality (HR = 2.29; 2.04–2.56), and a longer length of stay (β-coefficient = 2.00; 1.65–2.34) but not with 30-day readmission. The association between the eFI and in-hospital mortality remained robust across the waves, even after the vaccination rollout. Among all measures, the eFI had the best discrimination for in-hospital (AUC = 0.780), 30-day (Harrell’s C = 0.733), and 6-month mortality (Harrell’s C = 0.719). Conclusion: An eFI based on routinely collected EHRs can be applied in identifying high-risk older COVID-19 patients during the continuing pandemic.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.03.21267254: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.03.21267254: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-