MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377984965 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwad125.089

The Edmonton frail scale is a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation in frail older patients after open cardiac surgery

2023· article· en· W4377984965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Inesa Kuznecova, E Tamuleviciute - Prasciene, Aurelija Beigienė, Vitalija Stonkuvienė, I Tribiciute, Raimondas Kubilius

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAerobic exercisePopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Together with the aging population, the part of older frail patients after cardiac surgery is increasing in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) settings. Frailty detection is crucial for choosing appropriate training programs, but according to the literature, there is not enough evidence on what tools should be used to detect frailty and evaluate its dynamics during CR. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of CR for older frail patients after open heart surgery using the Edmonton frail scale. Methods A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Inclusion criteria: all patients were admitted to CR after open heart surgery, ≥ 65 years old, within 6-minute walking distance (6-MWD) ≥150 m, Edmonton frailt scale (EFS) score ≥ 4, patient’s agreement to participate in the study. Patients (N=100, 73,3±5,1 years, 17,1±7,4 days post-surgery, 62,0% male)) were randomly allocated for gender assigned (1:1 ration) to intervention or control groups (IG n=50, CG n=50). Both groups participated in exercise training during inpatient-CR. After completing the 20-day rehabilitation program, the intervention group (IG) participated in home-based exercise training that lasted 12 weeks. The home-based exercise training program included four different types of exercise: aerobic endurance training (5/week, 20–60 min) including walking, stair climbing, and cycling of moderate to high intensity; sensomotoric training (3/week, 15 min) including exercises on postural control, dynamic balance, and coordination of moderate to high intensity; resistance training (3/week, 20–25 min) including 4 – 8 exercises at moderate intensity, involving main muscle groups of the legs; flexibility training (3/week, 10–15 min) including isolated type flexibility exercises at low to moderate intensity. Participants of IG were monitored by phone calls every two weeks and the CG were assigned to usual care. Patients were assessed before (T1) and after 20-days inpatient CR (T2) and 12 weeks after completion of CR (T3). Patients' frailty was evaluated between groups and over time by the Edmonton frail scale (frail ≥ 6, prefrail 4-5, robust 0-3). SPSS 22 was used for statistical analysis. The Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests were applied to compute p-values for the differences between the groups and periods. Results There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the groups except that in CG there were more women (p=0,013). As a result of inpatient-CR and home-based exercise training program prevalence of frailty decreased in both groups, but no statistical significance between the groups was observed. (Table 1). Conclusions EFS is a suitable tool to detect frailty and evaluate its dynamic during short-term CR (after 20 days) and medium-term (after 12 weeks) home-based CR programs. The results are encouraging, but probably because of the small sample size and short monitoring time, no significant differences were found between the groups.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207