Prevalence of Frailty in Patients Referred to the Kidney Transplant Waitlist. Issue 8 (26th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Worthen, George; Vinson, Amanda; Cardinal, Héloise; Doucette, Steve; Gogan, Nessa; Gunaratnam, Lakshman; Keough-Ryan, Tammy; Kiberd, Bryce A.; Prasad, Bhanu; Rockwood, Kenneth; Sills, Laura; Suri, Rita S.; Tangri, Navdeep; Walsh, Michael; West, Kenneth; Yohanna, Seychelle; Tennankore, Karthik
• Is Part Of: Kidney360. Volume 2:Issue 8(2021)
• Page Start: 1287
• Page End: 1295
• Publication Date: 2021-08-26
• Subjects: transplantation -- ESRD -- frailty -- geriatric nephrology -- kidney -- kidney transplantation -- prevalence -- waiting lists; 616.61
• DOI: 10.34067/KID.0001892021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2641-7650

Abstract

Visual Abstract: Abstract: Key Points: Frailty prevalence varies for the Frailty Phenotype, a frailty index, and the Clinical Frailty Scale in transplant candidates. Agreement between these measures for determining frailty status was variable, suggesting they measure different aspects of frailty. The frailty index and the Clinical Frailty Scale were associated with a shorter time to death or waitlist withdrawal in an unadjusted analysis. Background: Comparisons between frailty assessment tools for waitlist candidates are a recognized priority area for kidney transplantation. We compared the prevalence of frailty using three established tools in a cohort of waitlist candidates. Methods: Waitlist candidates were prospectively enrolled from 2016 to 2020 across five centers. Frailty was measured using the Frailty Phenotype (FP), a 37-variable frailty index (FI), and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The FI and CFS were dichotomized using established cutoffs. Agreement was compared using κ coefficients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the FI and CFS (treated as continuous measures) with the FP. Unadjusted associations between each frailty measure and time to death or waitlist withdrawal were determined using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of 542 enrolled patients, 64% were male, 80% were White, and the mean age was 54±14 years. The prevalence of frailty by the FP was 16%. The mean FI score was 0.23±0.14, and the prevalence of frailty was 38% (score of ≥0.25). The median CFS score was three (IQR, 2–3), and the prevalence was 15% (score of ≥4). The κ values comparing the FP with the FI (0.44) and CFS (0.27) showed fair to moderate agreement. The area under the ROC curves for the FP and FI/CFS were 0.86 (good) and 0.69 (poor), respectively. Frailty by the CFS (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.24) and FI (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.21) was associated with death or permanent withdrawal. The association between frailty by the FP and death/withdrawal was not statistically significant (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.71). Conclusion: Frailty prevalence varies by the measurement tool used, and agreement between these measurements is fair to moderate. This has implications for determining the optimal frailty screening tool for use in those being evaluated for kidney transplant.