Long-stay ICU patients with frailty: mortality and recovery outcomes at 6 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay is associated with physical, cognitive, and psychological disabilities. The impact of baseline frailty on long-stay ICU patients remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate how baseline frailty influences mortality and post-ICU disability 6 months after critical illness in long-stay ICU patients. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed patients hospitalized for ≥ 7 days in the ICU between May 2018 and May 2021, following them for up to 6 months or until death. Based on the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) at ICU admissions, patients were categorized as frail (CFS ≥ 5), pre-frail (CFS 3–4) and non-frail (CFS 1–2). Kaplan–Meier curves and a multivariate Cox model were used to examine the association between frailty and mortality. At the 6 month follow-up, we assessed psychological, physical, cognitive outcomes, and health-related quality of life (QoL) using descriptive statistics and linear regressions. Results We enrolled 531 patients, of which 178 (33.6%) were frail, 200 (37.6%) pre-frail and 153 (28.8%) non-frail. Frail patients were older, had more comorbidities, and greater disease severity at ICU admission. At 6 months, frail patients presented higher mortality rates than pre-frail and non-frail patients (34.3% (61/178) vs. 21% (42/200) vs. 13.1% (20/153) respectively, p < 0.01). The rate of withdrawing or withholding of care did not differ significantly between the groups. Compared with CFS 1–2, the adjusted hazard ratios of death at 6 months were 1.7 (95% CI 0.9–2.9) for CFS 3–4 and 2.9 (95% CI 1.7–4.9) for CFS ≥ 5. At 6 months, 192 patients were seen at a follow-up consultation. In multivariate linear regressions, CFS ≥ 5 was associated with poorer physical health-related QoL, but not with poorer mental health-related QoL, compared with CFS 1–2. Conclusion Frailty is associated with increased mortality and poorer physical health-related QoL in long-stay ICU patients at 6 months. The admission CFS can help inform patients and families about the complexities of survivorship during a prolonged ICU stay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".