MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177322038 · doi:10.1186/s13019-021-01541-8

Frailty and pre-frailty in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,448 patients

2021· review· en· W3177322038 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Avery Lee, Bobby Yanagawa, Kevin R. An, Rakesh C. Arora, Subodh Verma, Jan O. Friedrich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryHazard ratioOdds ratioInternal medicineMeta-analysisCardiothoracic surgeryConfidence intervalObservational studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The burden of frailty on cardiac surgical outcomes is incompletely understood. Here we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing frail versus pre-frail versus non-frail patients following cardiac surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until July 2018 for studies comparing cardiac surgery outcomes in "frail", "pre-frail" and "non-frail" patients. Data was extracted in duplicate. Primary outcome was operative mortality. RESULTS: There were 19 observational studies with 66,448 patients. Frail patients were more likely female (risk ratio [RR]1.7; 95%CI:1.5-1.9), older (mean difference: 2.4; 95%CI:1.3-3.5 years older) with greater comorbidities and higher STS-PROM. Frailty (RR2.35; 95%CI:1.57-3.51; p < 0.0001) and pre-frailty (RR2.03; 95%CI:1.52-2.70; p < 0.00001) were associated with increased operative mortality compared with non-frail patients. Frailty was also associated with greater risk of prolonged hospital stay (RR1.83; 95%CI:1.61-2.08; p < 0.0001) and intermediate care facility discharge (RR2.71; 95%CI:1.45-5.05; p = 0.002). Frail (Hazard Ratio [HR]3.27; 95%CI:1.93-5.55; p < 0.0001) and pre-frail patients (HR2.30; 95%CI:1.29-4.09; p = 0.005) had worse mid-term mortality (median follow-up 1 years [range 0.5-4 years]). After adjustment for baseline imbalances, frailty was still associated with greater operative mortality (odds ratio [OR]1.97; 95%CI:1.51-2.57; p < 0.00001), intermediate care facility discharge (OR4.61; 95%CI:2.78-7.66; p < 0.00001) and midterm mortality (HR1.37; 95%CI:1.03-1.83; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, frailty and pre-frailty were associated with 2-fold and 1.5-fold greater adjusted operative mortality, respectively, greater adjusted perioperative complications and frailty was associated with almost 5-fold risk of non-home discharge. Burden of frailty and pre-frailty on cardiac surgical outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.028
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations166
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiothoracic SurgerySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207