Preoperative Evaluation of the Frail Patient : Anesthesia & Analgesia

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Advanced Search
Featured Articles

Preoperative Evaluation of the Frail Patient

Nidadavolu, Lolita S. MD, PhD*; Ehrlich, April L. MD*; Sieber, Frederick E. MD†; Oh, Esther S. MD, PhD*,‡,§,‖

Author Information

From the Departments of *Medicine

†Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine

‡Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

§Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

‖Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland.

Accepted for publication January 28, 2020.

Funding: This study was funded by R01AG057725 (E.S.O.), the Roberts Family Fund (E.S.O.), and National Institute on Aging (T32AG058527) Translational Aging Research Training Program (L.S.N.).

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website.

Reprints will not be available from the authors.

Address correspondence to Esther S. Oh, MD, PhD, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Center, 5501 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Room 1B.76, Baltimore, MD 21224. Address e-mail to [email protected].

Anesthesia & Analgesia 130(6):p 1493-1503, June 2020. | DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004735

Abstract

In the United States, approximately one-third of all operating room–based procedures are performed on adults ≥65 years.1 Rates of surgical complications increase with age; in 1 study of adults >80 years, 20% developed postoperative complications including pneumonia, prolonged (>48 hours) ventilator support, and cardiac arrest.2 This has implications on the practice of anesthesia as the geriatric population has a unique physiology that affects their surgical outcomes. One such challenge is frailty. Frailty is a biologic syndrome characterized by decreased homeostatic reserve and diminished resistance to stressors due to cumulative declines across multiple physiologic systems that result in vulnerability to adverse outcomes.3

Approximately 1 in 6 community-dwelling individuals >60 years may be frail, representing a significant portion of older individuals presenting for surgery.4 A prospective cohort study comparing 2 frailty assessment tools demonstrated that between 35% and 41% of patients were frail, and these frail patients were more likely to have adverse outcomes including more postoperative complications, increased length of stay (LOS), and higher 30-day readmission rates.5 Other studies showed that higher frailty scores were associated with higher risk of postoperative 30-day mortality after adjusting for age and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification.6,7 These studies demonstrate the importance of identifying frail older individuals who are planned for elective and emergent surgeries.

This narrative review will discuss different frailty assessment tools that have been validated in surgical populations and examine the association of preoperative frailty with postoperative outcomes. Although there are younger adults who are frail, this review will focus on older adults because frailty is strongly associated with increasing age and most of the validated tools have been extensively studied in older populations.8

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched with date restrictions of January 1, 2001 to August 22, 2019. We started our search in 2001 due to the publication of the Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) and the Deficit Accumulation Index (DAI) frailty assessments in 2001.3,9 A combination of controlled vocabulary and keyword terms was used for the concepts of frail elderly, preoperative care, assessment, complications or outcomes, and survey instruments. A total of 1869 records were identified. Duplicate records were removed, and 1510 titles and abstracts were identified. Inclusion criteria are as follows: surgical population, age ≥65, frailty assessed by a validated tool, and reporting on postoperative complications and other clinical outcomes. Exclusion criteria are as follows: oncological surgeries or procedures, age <65, studies assessing different surgical techniques or approaches, studies focusing on the economic and financial impact of frailty, and conference abstracts. In addition, studies that did not utilize all components of previously validated frailty tools (eg, only using gait speed or handgrip strength) were excluded. We also reviewed reference lists in relevant review articles to identify additional studies. Articles were reviewed by L.S.N. and A.L.E., and consensus was reached for final inclusion of eligible studies. Of the 1869 articles initially identified, 32 articles met all inclusion and exclusion criteria (Supplemental Digital Content, Figure, https://links.lww.com/AA/D38).

RESULTS

Frailty Assessment Tools

Conceptual Frameworks Behind Frailty Assessment Tools.

There are 2 major conceptual frameworks behind the most commonly used frailty measurement tools.10 The first is the concept of frailty as a biological syndrome characterized by energy depletion as exemplified by the PFP (Table 1). The PFP takes into account physical measurements of grip strength and walking speed and raises questions about exhaustion, physical activity, and unintentional weight loss as key clinical presentations of decreased physiologic reserve.3 The 5 components of the PFP are considered to be proxy measurements of dysregulation in stress response and energy metabolism.10

Table 1. - Frailty Assessment Tools Used in Surgical Populations
Assessment Tool Time to Complete Assessment (min)11–14 Number of Items Measurements/Items Scoring
Brief Frailty Instrument (Rockwood15 1999) 10 4 ADLs
Cognition
Continence
Mobility		 Scale: 0–3, increasing frailty with increasing score.
Deficit Accumulation Index/Frailty Index (Mitnitski et al9 2001) 20–30 21–70 Burden of chronic disease
Cognition
Exhaustion
Measure mobility
Mood
Nutritional status
Physical function
Social vulnerability		 Quantify deficits in an individual, divide by the total number of deficits taken into consideration.
Higher level of frailty with higher proportion of deficits.
Groningen Frailty Indicator (Steverink16 2001) 15 15 Cognition
Hearing impairment
Mobility
Nourishment
Physical fitness
Polypharmacy
Psychosocial
Vision impairment		 Scale: 0–15. Moderately to severely frail ≥4.
Physical Frailty Phenotype (Fried et al3 2001) 5–10 5 Exhaustion
Grip strengtha
Physical activity
Unintentional weight Loss
Walking speedb 		Scale: 0–5.
Frail ≥3;
Prefrail =11–2; Robust =0.
Vulnerable Elders Survey (Saliba et al17 2001) <5 13 ADL/IADL disability
Age
Physical function
Self-rated health		 Scale: 0–10. Frail = score 3+.
Clinical Frailty Scale (Rockwood et al18 2005) <5 1 Physician assigns score based on clinical judgment, comorbidity, and function
A multidisciplinary team performs a secondary review and scoring		 1 = Very fit; 2 = Well; 3 = Well, with treated comorbid disease; 4 = Apparently vulnerable; 5 = Mildly frail; 6 = Moderately frail; 7 = Severely frail.
Edmonton Frail Scale (Rolfson et al19 2006) 10–15 10 Balance
Burden of medical illness
Cognition
Continence
Functional independence
Gait
Health attitudes
Medication use
Mood
Nutrition
Quality of life
Social support		 Scale: 0–17. Not frail ≤5; Apparently vulnerable 6–11; Severe frailty ≥12.
FRAIL Scale (Abellan van Kan et al20 2008) 5–10 5 Ambulation
Fatigue
Illnesses
Resistance
Weight loss		 Scale: 0–5. No frailty = 0 deficits. Prefrail = 11–2 deficits. Frailty = 3 or more deficits.
Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (Sternberg et al21 2012) Not defined 12 Barriers to access of care
Decubitus ulcer
Dementia
Difficulty walking
Falls
Impaired vision
Malnutrition
Poverty
Urine incontinence
Weight loss		 Frail: any one of these diagnoses are present.
mFI (Velanovich et al22 2013) 10–15 11 COPD
Current pneumonia
Diabetes
Functional health status
Heart failure
History of MI
History of TIA
Hypertension
Impaired sensorium
Stroke
Vascular disease		 Scale: Number of risk factors/11; increasing frailty with increasing score.
Risk Analysis Index (RAI-C) (Hall et al23 2017)c <2 14 Activities of daily living
Age
Appetite
Cancer status
Cognitive decline
Heart failure
Renal failure
Residency
Resting shortness of breath
Sex
Unintentional weight loss		 Scale: 0–81. Score = sum of score of separate questions; increasing frailty with increasing score.
Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FRAIL, Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, Weight Loss; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; mFI, modified Frailty Index; MI, myocardial infarction; RAI-C, Clinical Risk Analysis Index; TIA, transient ischemic attack.
aGrip strength is stratified by gender and body mass index quartiles and measured in kilograms using a Jamar hand-held dynamometer. Frail patients have measurements in the 20th percentile.3
bWalking speed is stratified by gender and height. Time to walk 4 m at usual pace is measured in seconds.24
cThis frailty tool was validated in patients aged ≥18 with mean age 60.7 years old.

The second framework for defining frailty is considering frailty as an accumulation of deficits across functional, physical, cognitive, and social measures.10 Instruments that define frailty as “deficit accumulation” include the DAI, the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (JHACG) frailty assessment, and the modified Frailty Index 11 (mFI 11).9,21,22 These tools measure factors including nutrition, comorbidities, functional status, disability, and mental health, and a cumulative score is derived. Similarly, the Brief Frailty Instrument by Rockwood15 incorporates an operational definition of frailty beyond measuring activities of daily living by including cognitive impairment and incontinence components to their tool. The JHACG frailty assessment and DAI utilize specific diagnosis codes or the presence/absence of specific comorbidities to define a frail subset of patients (Table 1).9,21 Both the PFP and deficit accumulation models, such as the DAI and mFI 11, are more predictive of a patient’s cumulative risk of adverse outcomes than age alone.10

Measurement Issues in Frailty Assessment Tools.

Although there is a range of factors that comprise different frailty assessment tools, 2 domains (ie, physical and cognitive function) that may require active measurement are discussed below.

Physical Measures.

The 2 physical measurements in the PFP—gait speed and handgrip strength—require training to standardize measurements. A comprehensive review of handgrip strength measurement demonstrates that factors—model of dynamometer, posture and arm position of patient, and handle position—can influence results and make it challenging to compare results when different protocols are used.25 Gait speed measurement and Timed Up and Go (TUG) testing requires a dedicated location where 4- and 3-m markings can be placed on the floor for the respective tests.24,26 This requirement for specialized equipment and space may be challenging for some outpatient preoperative clinics or in the home of a patient. In addition, patients with limited mobility due to pain may find their preoperative gait speed and TUG measurements to be an inaccurate assessment of their premorbid functioning.

Cognitive Assessments.

Underlying cognitive impairment is a well-known risk factor for many different postoperative complications including delirium. In 1 recent study of over 7800 patients undergoing hip fracture repair, dementia diagnosis was one of the strongest risk factors for postoperative delirium.27 Patients identified as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI) before surgery were also at higher risk of developing postoperative delirium, and demonstrated increased risk of adverse outcomes, specifically higher rates of discharge to a postacute facility and new impairment in cognitive instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) 1 month later.28 A study of cognitively impaired patients undergoing vascular surgery demonstrated significantly higher rates of wound infections and longer LOS (>10 days) compared to cognitively normal patients.29 Furthermore, patients with dementia are at higher risk of mortality after surgery compared to patients with normal cognition (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10–3.07).30

Despite the strong association of underlying cognitive function with poor postoperative outcomes, not all frailty assessment tools incorporate cognitive assessment. The PFP; Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES); Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, Weight Loss (FRAIL) Scale; and mFI 11 do not have an explicit component of preoperative cognitive assessment built into their assessment tools. The DAI and JHACG rely on self-report of cognitive impairment, and the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) has a limited active cognitive screening component (eg, clock draw). Active measurement of cognitive function is important as these measures may be used to determine a patient’s response to perioperative stressors and could allow monitoring of longitudinal cognitive trajectory.31

With respect to the feasibility of incorporating cognitive assessment into an outpatient preoperative visit, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)—a well-validated study with high reliability—can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.29 A review by Long et al32 details several other short (≤2.5 minutes) cognitive assessments that can be completed preoperatively including the Mini-Cog, which consists of a 3-word recall and clock drawing test. Incorporating cognitive testing in a preoperative clinic has been shown to be feasible and not burdensome to either practitioners or patients.33 Due to the lack of active cognitive screening component in most frailty assessment tools, it would be important to incorporate an additional cognitive screening measure into the perioperative workflow.

Time to Complete Frailty Assessments.

One of the challenges of preoperative evaluation for frailty is the length of time to perform such assessments in a busy outpatient clinic.10 In general, newer frailty assessment tools are designed to be shorter in duration and more conveniently performed in an outpatient preoperative clinic (Table 1). At this time, tools such as the PFP require patient participation, specialized equipment, staff training for standardized assessment, and additional time to perform the physical measurements. Simpler versions of existing frailty tools continue to be developed (eg, the modified Frailty Index 5 [mFI 5]). MFI 5 uses a subset of measures from the mFI 11 and has also been shown to have good sensitivity for identifying frail older adults preoperatively.22,34 Frailty assessment tools, such as mFI 11 and JHACG, are further streamlined by relying on data from electronic medical records or the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Relevant medical comorbidities, changes in weight, and baseline physical and cognitive function can be identified and used in these frailty assessment tools without relying solely on patient self-report.

Postoperative Outcomes Associated With Frailty

Frail patients overall have worse health care outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, LOS, mortality) compared to nonfrail counterparts in both elective and emergent surgical procedures (Table 2). Frail and nonfrail patients had similar surgical procedures in these studies, with exception of vascular procedures, in which frail patients primarily underwent peripheral vascular interventions and were less likely to have major elective vascular surgery than nonfrail patients.47 A study examining general, vascular, cardiac, thoracic, and orthopedic surgeries in a large population showed that the most robust patients (Risk Analysis Index [RAI] ≤ 10) comprised 80% of the surgical population, while frail patients (RAI ≥ 21) comprised only 7% of the population.11 As frail patients constitute approximately 15% of community-based individuals who are over 65 years of age,62 there may be a selection bias where poor operative candidates are excluded from undergoing surgery.63 This discordance between the percentage of frail patients in the overall population compared to the percentage of frail patients undergoing major surgical procedures suggests that surgical studies are likely to underestimate postoperative risk in frail patients.

Postoperative Complications.

Overall, higher post operative complication rates were associated with frailty status (Table 2). A study examining emergency general surgeries by Joseph et al36 showed that major complication (eg, sepsis, pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis) rates in frail patients were >3 times more likely than in robust patients (odds ratio [OR] = 3.87; 95% CI, 1.69–8.84). All 4 studies examining patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries (elective and hip fracture repairs) demonstrated higher rates of complications for patients categorized as frail as well.5,46,49,55 Although many of the studies did not examine delirium as one of the main postoperative complications, 1 study by Gleason et al49 demonstrated that postoperative delirium rates were higher in frail compared to nonfrail patients undergoing orthopedic procedures (28% vs 3.4%, P = .01).

In terms of frailty tool–specific findings, frailty status as defined by the DAI, Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), VES, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications in patients undergoing emergency surgery35,36,43,44; however, this was not observed with the Brief Frailty Instrument.35 Interestingly, the VES and GFI were used alongside the Brief Frailty Instrument in the same surgical population to categorize frailty status. Frailty identified by VES and GFI was associated with higher rates of complications in frail patients suggesting that the Brief Frailty Instrument may underestimate risk of postoperative complication in this population.35 A meta-analysis examining mFI 11 use across various surgical settings showed higher risk of all complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.35–1.61), Clavien-Dindo Class IV complications (requiring critical care management) (RR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.26–3.29), and wound complications (RR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.47–1.57) for frail patients compared to robust patients.54

A large retrospective study by Shah et al54 using data from ACS-NSQIP demonstrated that frailty is associated with higher complication rates even in low-risk procedures (average 30-day mortality rate ≤1%). In this study, the proportion of individuals with any complication was higher in the most frail group (Clinical Risk Analysis Index [RAI-C] >40) compared to the robust group (RAI-C ≤10) undergoing low-risk procedures (42.9% vs 4.4%, P < .001). Findings were similar for major complications in the same population and with higher proportion of individuals with major complication in the most frail group (RAI-C >40) compared to the robust group (RAI-C ≤10) (36.4% vs 3.2%, P < .001). Both of these findings suggest a dose–response association between the degree of frailty and the number of postoperative complications.11

Length of Stay.

Frailty was significantly associated with LOS in 20 of 22 studies (Table 2). Two studies that did not show significant association of frailty with LOS examined elective general surgery and vascular procedures and, in general, had smaller samples compared to the studies that showed significant associations.12,38 One study using 2 different frailty assessment tools in elective total joint replacement patients showed that the frailty status categorized by the CFS was significantly associated with LOS while those categorized by FRAIL scale was not.42 The CFS is based on the deficit accumulation model,18 and the FRAIL scale is based more on Fried’s phenotypic model.20,42 The authors postulated that their study population, which consisted of elective orthopedic surgery patients, may have excluded more frail patients (eg, the hip fracture population).42

Factors that could be contributing to increased LOS for frail patients are increased postoperative complication rate and additional time required to arrange discharge to skilled facility. Among the orthopedic surgeries that examined LOS as an outcome, 7 of 8 studies demonstrated significantly increased LOS in frail patients. Frailty assessment tools used in these studies ranged from DAI, PFP, CFS, FRAIL scale, and mFI. In general, most studies examined LOS as a continuous variable. Gleason et al49 examined LOS as both a binary (> or ≤6 days) and a continuous variable and found statistically significant associations of higher frailty score with longer LOS in both analyses.

The study by Drudi et al38 demonstrated association of frailty with mortality and worsening disability after interventions for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) but not with LOS. The study by Vernon et al12 using the VES in patients undergoing elective surgical procedures examined LOS as a binary variable to primarily observe whether patients required noninvasive positive pressure ventilation following their procedure or an unanticipated hospital stay. However, the authors state that their study was significantly limited by missing data, with only 48 of 103 patients having complete surveys from which the researchers could calculate frailty score. Smaller sample size may have contributed to the nonsignificant findings between frailty status and LOS in this study.12

Postoperative Mortality.

Twenty-five studies specifically examined associations between frailty status and 30-day mortality. One study by McIsaac et al50 examining independent, community-dwelling patients demonstrated that mortality was particularly high among frail patients in the immediate postoperative period. In this study, frail patients undergoing emergency surgical procedures were 23 times as likely as nonfrail patients to die on postoperative day 1 (HR = 23.1; 95% CI, 22.3–24.1).50 Among patients undergoing major elective noncardiac surgery, 1-year mortality remained increased for frail versus nonfrail patients even after adjusting for demographics, procedure types, and 19 different medical comorbidities (HR = 1.36, 95% CI, 1.26–1.46).51 Other studies of patients undergoing emergency procedures demonstrated similar increases in rates of postoperative mortality for frail patients.35,36,43,44 Four of the 25 studies did not show statistically significant associations between frailty and postoperative mortality.37,38,46,49 These studies had smaller sample sizes and included patients undergoing hip fracture repair, general orthopedic surgeries, and vascular surgery.38,46 One study by Hall et al23 examining elective surgery patients showed, for those determined to be frail, that mortality 1 year following surgery remained elevated compared to the overall 1-year mortality for the group (26.8% vs 3.5%).

Postoperative Discharge Disposition and 30-Day Readmission Rates.

Table 2. - Surgical Outcomes for Frail Versus Nonfrail Patients
Frailty Tool Surgical Population Sample Size Increase in LOS for Frail Patients Compared to Nonfrail Patients (Days) Postoperative Complications Postoperative ICU Admission 30-Day Mortality Discharge to Health Care Facility 30-Day Readmission
Brief Frailty Instrument Emergency surgery35 184 NS a
Deficit Accumulation Index Elective orthopedic procedure5 415 a NS a NS
Emergency surgery36 220 a a a a NS
Groningen Frailty Indicator Emergency surgery35 184 a a
Hip fracture37 280 NS
Vascular surgery38 148 NS a
Physical Frailty Phenotype Elective orthopedic procedure5 415 a a a NS
Elective surgery39,40 594; 127 a a a a
General surgery41 298 a a
Vulnerable Elders Survey Elective general surgery12 48 NS NS
Emergency surgery35 184 a a
Clinical Frailty Scale Elective joint replacement42 87 a a
Emergency surgery43,44 937; a a a NS
164
General surgery45 325 a a NS
Hip fracture46 423 a a NS NS a
Vascular surgery47 134 a NS a a a NS
Edmonton Frail Scale Elective noncardiac surgery48 125 a a a
Vascular surgery38 148 NS NS
FRAIL Scale Elective joint replacement42 87 a NS
Orthopedic surgery49 175 a a NS NS NS NS
Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Emergency surgery50 77,184 a a a
Major elective noncardiac surgery51 202,811 a
mFI Aortic Valve replacement52 3088 a a
Elective surgery23 1021 a
Femur fracture53 321 a
General surgery54 683,487 a a a a
Total hip arthroplasty55 51,582 a a a a a
Vascular surgery6,38,56,57 23,207; 15,843; 67,308; 148 a a a a
RAI-C Elective surgery23,58 6803; 9153 a
Hepatopancreatobiliary surgery59 162 a a a
Low- and high-risk surgical procedures11 984,550 a a
Urological procedures60 42,715 a a a a
Vascular surgery52,61 44, 832; 3088 a a a
Blank spaces indicate that the outcome was not measured in the article.
Abbreviations: FRAIL, Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, Weight Loss; ; ICU, intensive care unit; LOS, length of stay; mFI, Modified Frailty Index; NS, not significant; RAI-C, Clinical Risk Analysis Index.
aP < .05.

A majority of the results from Table 2 demonstrate that, depending on the type of surgery, frail patients are at higher risk of functional impairment from prolonged LOS or complications than a nonfrail patient. These adverse outcomes can lead to patients requiring discharge to subacute nursing facilities for continued care. One study found that frail vascular surgery patients were 1.6 times as likely as robust patients to be discharged to a postacute care facility instead of their homes (OR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4–1.8).56 Orthopedic surgery studies examining discharge disposition demonstrated that the PFP, DAI, CFS, and mFI,5,42,55 but not the FRAIL scale, were associated with increased rates of discharge to skilled facilities in this population.42 Among community-dwelling older adults undergoing emergency surgery, frail patients were 5.8 times as likely as robust patients to be discharged to a postacute care facility (OR = 5.8; 95% CI, 5.53–6.12).50 A meta-analysis looking at the use of mFI 11 in surgical patients similarly showed increased relative risk of discharge to postacute care following surgery for frail patients compared to robust patients.54 The frailty assessment tools that demonstrate positive associations between frailty and 30-day readmission are the mFI and RAI-C, examining general surgery, total hip arthroplasty, and general urological procedures54,55,60 (Table 2).

Comparison of Frailty Tools to Other Surgical Risk-Stratifying Tools.

Frailty assessment tools have been compared to other tools assessing surgical risk (eg, ASA classification and comorbidity index). One study looking at mFI 11 in total hip arthroplasty population showed that mFI 11 was a stronger predictor of readmission rates (OR = 14.72; 95% CI, 6.95–31.18) than the ASA classification or age.55 MFI 11 was also a better predictor of any complication (OR = 3.63; 95% CI, 1.64–8.05) and reoperation (OR = 6.52; 95% CI, 2.48–17.13), while ASA classification and age did not show statistically significant association with these outcomes.55 Other studies showed that frailty was predictive of higher risk for 30-day mortality and discharge to a skilled facility, while age and ASA score were not associated with these outcomes.36,47 However, 1 study found that addition of frailty measurement to ASA class improved the ability to predict postoperative complications and discharge to a skilled nursing facility.39

DISCUSSION

Preoperative assessment of frailty using tools validated for surgical populations is one of the first steps in identifying patients who are at high risk for poor postoperative outcomes. Across different surgical populations, frailty is associated with greater overall postoperative complications, longer hospital LOS, and higher mortality. Therefore, preoperative knowledge of frailty can help guide discussions with the patient’s care team to optimize perioperative care.

There is no gold standard assessment for frailty, particularly among older individuals undergoing surgery. Assessment tools vary in the domains assessed (ie, cognition, comorbidities, and physical function), source of information (ie, direct assessment, self-report, and electronic health records), time required, and location of evaluation (ie, outpatient, inpatient, and by telephone). In considering the data presented in Tables 1 and 2, frailty assessment tools most predictive of postoperative complications, longer LOS, and higher mortality include the mFI, CFS, PFP, and RAI-C. The mFI and RAI-C, in particular, can pull in the relevant information needed to assess frailty from a patient’s electronic medical records. The PFP can also be a useful frailty assessment tool in a preoperative clinic, particularly once staff is trained on standardized measurement of grip strength and gait speed. In addition, the PFP also has a well-characterized biologic framework and animal models in which proposed interventions for frailty can be tested for efficacy.64,65

The feasibility of implementing frailty assessment in a preoperative clinic visit is an important consideration. Recently developed tools (mFI 11, CFS, RAI-C, and the FRAIL scale) can be completed in approximately 10 minutes without requiring physical measures (eg, hand grip or timed walk).13 The VES has also been successfully administered over the telephone.12 With the right tools and appropriate training, both PFP and DAI can be performed in a clinic setting.5,66

It is less clear what should be done once a patient is identified as frail and is scheduled to undergo an elective or emergent surgical procedure. Some strategies that can be implemented for both frail and nonfrail patients include preoperative optimization of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension and congestive heart failure, nutritional assessment, and closer postoperative monitoring in a stepdown unit.67 Geriatrics comanagement and consultation can also be implemented early on in a frail patient’s hospital course. In the preoperative setting, identifying a frail patient should initiate further discussions of goals of care, and more comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can be performed to identify medical, physical, or socioeconomic vulnerabilities that contribute to a patient’s frail status that can be targeted for intervention.

Several recent editorials describe a role for rapid frailty assessment tools with high negative predictive values to rule out frailty in surgical candidates, while allowing for patients who screen positive for frailty to undergo more rigorous preoperative assessments.31,68 These assessments may include a CGA, an interdisciplinary approach that systematically evaluates physical, functional, cognitive, environmental, and social domains for an older adult.69 An individualized treatment plan resulting from concerted interdisciplinary effort is the goal of a successful CGA.70

An example of what can be done for individuals who are identified as frail is highlighted in study by Hall et al58 using the RAI-C and measuring the effectiveness of a “frailty screening initiative.” This initiative consisted of clarifying goals of care and postoperative expectations for patients as well as informing the patient’s surgeons, anesthesiologists, and critical care physicians of the patient’s frailty status.58 Overall 30-day mortality for all subjects in the frailty screening initiative arm, regardless of frailty status, decreased from 1.6% preinitiative to 0.7% following the initiative, and frail subjects had the greatest reduction in 30-day mortality compared to robust patients, decreasing from 12.2% to 3.8%.58

One intervention for frail surgical patients that is receiving more attention is prehabilitation. Prehabilitation is a multimodal intervention that aims to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience of patients to stressors such as surgery or nonsurgical interventions.67 Previous literature has considered prehabilitation as an intervention to reduce disability and restore function among frail patients before development of acute illness, injury, or surgery.71 However, there is no consensus for the optimal type of prehabilitation for frail patients, likely from the lack of robust randomized control trials at this time.

The strengths of this narrative review include a comprehensive evaluation of frailty assessment tools that were specifically validated in surgical populations as well as postoperative outcomes that have been examined among individuals who were identified as frail using these tools. Limitations of this review include focus on adults over age 65. There are studies examining frail patients who are <65, particularly in cancer, cardiac surgery, and transplant medicine fields that were excluded based on our criteria. An additional limitation is that studies looking at oncologic surgeries and those with concurrent or preceding chemotherapy were also excluded. The presence of cancer and chemotherapy can be an additional stressor to older adults, and patients with a history of cancer have significantly higher rates of frailty and vulnerability.72 A comprehensive review focusing on frailty in the oncologic setting has been recently published.73 We also excluded studies that focused only on preoperative sarcopenia, but a review on the topic of sarcopenia and surgical outcomes has also been published recently.74

Determining a patient’s preoperative frailty status is critical to assessing a patient’s overall perioperative risk including postoperative complications, increased mortality, longer hospital LOS, and higher level of care on discharge. Preoperative knowledge of frailty status can guide discussions among patients, their families, anesthesiologists, and surgeons to tailor perioperative care for patients to mitigate this increased risk. All the frailty assessment tools identified in this review demonstrated the ability to identify frail individuals who were at higher risk of worse postoperative outcomes compared to nonfrail individuals in different surgical settings. These assessment tools incorporate different measurements that can be done in the outpatient setting or in the hospital before surgery, demonstrating feasibility. Ongoing studies on the efficacy of preoperative interventions targeting frail patients will be instructive in providing more information about how to best improve postoperative outcomes for frail older adults.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Carrie Price, MLS of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, for her assistance with the literature search.

DISCLOSURES

Name: Lolita S. Nidadavolu, MD, PhD.

Contribution: This author helped conceptualize, write, and revise the manuscript.

Name: April L. Ehrlich, MD.

Contribution: This author helped conceptualize, write, and revise the manuscript.

Name: Frederick E. Sieber, MD.

Contribution: This author helped conceptualize and revise the manuscript.

Name: Esther S. Oh, MD, PhD.

Contribution: This author helped conceptualize, write, and revise the manuscript.

This manuscript was handled by: Robert Whittington, MD.

FOOTNOTES

REFERENCES

1. Elixhauser A, Andrews RM. Profile of inpatient operating room procedures in US hospitals in 2007. Arch Surg. 2010;145:1201–1208.
2. Hamel MB, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Daley J. Surgical outcomes for patients aged 80 and older: morbidity and mortality from major noncardiac surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:424–429.
3. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al.; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146–M156.
4. Ofori-Asenso R, Chin KL, Mazidi M, et al. Global incidence of frailty and prefrailty among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e198398.
5. Cooper Z, Rogers SO Jr, Ngo L, et al. Comparison of frailty measures as predictors of outcomes after orthopedic surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:2464–2471.
6. Arya S, Kim SI, Duwayri Y, et al. Frailty increases the risk of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and failure to rescue after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair independent of age and comorbidities. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:324–331.
7. Farhat JS, Velanovich V, Falvo AJ, et al. Are the frail destined to fail? Frailty index as predictor of surgical morbidity and mortality in the elderly. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72:1526–1530.
8. Richards SJG, Frizelle FA, Geddes JA, Eglinton TW, Hampton MB. Frailty in surgical patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018;33:1657–1666.
9. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal. 2001;1:323–336.
10. Walston J, Bandeen-Roche K, Buta B, et al. Moving frailty toward clinical practice: NIA intramural frailty swcience symposium summary. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67:1559–1564.
11. Shah R, Attwood K, Arya S, et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:e180214.
12. Vernon TL III, Rice AN, Titch JF, Hill BF, Muckler VC. Implementation of Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 frailty tool to identify at-risk geriatric surgical patients. J Perianesth Nurs. 2019;34:911–918.e2.
13. Bentov I, Kaplan SJ, Pham TN, Reed MJ. Frailty assessment: from clinical to radiological tools. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123:37–50.
14. Kellen E, Bulens P, Deckx L, et al. Identifying an accurate pre-screening tool in geriatric oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010;75:243–248.
15. Rockwood K. A brief clinical instrument to classify frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 1999;353:205–206.
16. Steverink N. Measuring frailty: developing and testing the GFI (Groningen Frailty Indicator). Gerontologist. 2001;41:236.
    17. Saliba D, Elliott M, Rubenstein LZ, et al. The vulnerable elders survey: a tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:1691–1699.
    18. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173:489–495.
    19. Rolfson DB, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Tahir A, Rockwood K. Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale. Age Ageing. 2006;35:526–529.
    20. Abellan van Kan G, Rolland YM, Morley JE, Vellas B. Frailty: toward a clinical definition. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008;9:71–72.
    21. Sternberg SA, Bentur N, Abrams C, et al. Identifying frail older people using predictive modeling. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18:e392–e397.
    22. Velanovich V, Antoine H, Swartz A, Peters D, Rubinfeld I. Accumulating deficits model of frailty and postoperative mortality and morbidity: its application to a national database. J Surg Res. 2013;183:104–110.
    23. Hall DE, Arya S, Schmid KK, et al. Development and initial validation of the risk analysis index for measuring frailty in surgical populations. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:175–182.
    24. Bandeen-Roche K, Xue QL, Ferrucci L, et al. Phenotype of frailty: characterization in the women’s health and aging studies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61:262–266.
    25. Sousa-Santos AR, Amaral TF. Differences in handgrip strength protocols to identify sarcopenia and frailty - a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:238.
    26. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–148.
    27. Malik AT, Quatman CE, Phieffer LS, Ly TV, Khan SN. Incidence, risk factors and clinical impact of postoperative delirium following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for hip fractures: an analysis of 7859 patients from the ACS-NSQIP hip fracture procedure targeted database. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29:435–446.
    28. Racine AM, Fong TG, Gou Y, et al. Clinical outcomes in older surgical patients with mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14:590–600.
    29. Partridge JS, Dhesi JK, Cross JD, et al. The prevalence and impact of undiagnosed cognitive impairment in older vascular surgical patients. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1002–11.e3.
    30. Bozic KJ, Lau E, Kurtz S, Ong K, Berry DJ. Patient-related risk factors for postoperative mortality and periprosthetic joint infection in medicare patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:130–137.
    31. George EL, Arya S. The importance of incorporating frailty screening into surgical clinical workflow. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e193538.
    32. Long LS, Shapiro WA, Leung JM. A brief review of practical preoperative cognitive screening tools. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59:798–804.
    33. Culley DJ, Flaherty D, Reddy S, et al. Preoperative cognitive stratification of older elective surgical patients: a Cross-Sectional Study. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:186–192.
    34. Subramaniam S, Aalberg JJ, Soriano RP, Divino CM. New 5-factor modified Frailty Index using American College of Surgeons NSQIP data. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226:173–181.e8.
    35. Kenig J, Zychiewicz B, Olszewska U, Barczynski M, Nowak W. Six screening instruments for frailty in older patients qualified for emergency abdominal surgery. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;61:437–442.
    36. Joseph B, Zangbar B, Pandit V, et al. Emergency general surgery in the elderly: too old or too frail? J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:805–813.
    37. Winters AM, Hartog LC, Roijen H, Brohet RM, Kamper AM. Relationship between clinical outcomes and Dutch frailty score among elderly patients who underwent surgery for hip fracture. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:2481–2486.
    38. Drudi LM, Ades M, Mancini R, et al. Frailty assessment in older adults undergoing interventions for peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:1594–1602.e1.
    39. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:901–908.
    40. Pelavski AD, De Miguel M, Alcaraz Garcia-Tejedor G, et al. Mortality, geriatric, and nongeriatric surgical risk factors among the eldest old: a Prospective Observational Study. Anesth Analg. 2017;125:1329–1336.
    41. Andreou A, Lasithiotakis K, Venianaki M, et al. A comparison of two preoperative frailty models in predicting postoperative outcomes in geriatric general surgical patients. World J Surg. 2018;42:3897–3902.
    42. Wang HT, Fafard J, Ahern S, Vendittoli PA, Hebert P. Frailty as a predictor of hospital length of stay after elective total joint replacements in elderly patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19:14.
    43. Parmar KL, Law J, Carter B, et al.; ELF Study Group. Frailty in older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: results from the UK observational Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty (ELF) Study. Ann Surg. 2019. In press.
    44. McGuckin DG, Mufti S, Turner DJ, Bond C, Moonesinghe SR. The association of peri-operative scores, including frailty, with outcomes after unscheduled surgery. Anaesthesia. 2018;73:819–824.
    45. Hewitt J, Moug SJ, Middleton M, Chakrabarti M, Stechman MJ, McCarthy K; Older Persons Surgical Outcomes Collaboration. Prevalence of frailty and its association with mortality in general surgery. Am J Surg. 2015;209:254–259.
    46. Chan S, Wong EKC, Ward SE, Kuan D, Wong CL. The predictive value of the clinical frailty scale on discharge destination and complications in older hip fracture patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33:497–502.
    47. Donald GW, Ghaffarian AA, Isaac F, et al. Preoperative frailty assessment predicts loss of independence after vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:1382–1389.
    48. Dasgupta M, Rolfson DB, Stolee P, Borrie MJ, Speechley M. Frailty is associated with postoperative complications in older adults with medical problems. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;48:78–83.
    49. Gleason LJ, Benton EA, Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Weaver MJ, Harris MB, Javedan H. FRAIL questionnaire screening tool and short-term outcomes in geriatric fracture patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:1082–1086.
    50. McIsaac DI, Moloo H, Bryson GL, van Walraven C. The Association of frailty with outcomes and resource use after emergency general surgery: a Population-Based Cohort Study. Anesth Analg. 2017;124:1653–1661.
    51. McIsaac DI, Bryson GL, van Walraven C. Association of frailty and 1-year postoperative mortality following major elective noncardiac surgery: a Population-Based Cohort Study. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:538–545.
    52. Esses G, Andreopoulos E, Lin HM, Arya S, Deiner S. A comparison of three frailty indices in predicting morbidity and mortality after on-pump aortic valve replacement. Anesth Analg. 2018;126:39–45.
    53. Aizpuru M, Staley C, Reisman W, Gottschalk MB, Schenker ML. Determinants of length of stay after operative treatment for femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:161–166.
    54. Panayi AC, Orkaby AR, Sakthivel D, et al. Impact of frailty on outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2019;218:393–400.
    55. Bellamy JL, Runner RP, Vu CCL, Schenker ML, Bradbury TL, Roberson JR. Modified frailty index is an effective risk assessment tool in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2963–2968.
    56. Arya S, Long CA, Brahmbhatt R, et al. Preoperative frailty increases risk of nonhome discharge after elective vascular surgery in home-dwelling patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016;35:19–29.
    57. Karam J, Tsiouris A, Shepard A, Velanovich V, Rubinfeld I. Simplified frailty index to predict adverse outcomes and mortality in vascular surgery patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:904–908.
    58. Hall DE, Arya S, Schmid KK, et al. Association of a frailty screening initiative with postoperative survival at 30, 180, and 365 days. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:233–240.
    59. van der Windt DJ, Bou-Samra P, Dadashzadeh ER, Chen X, Varley PR, Tsung A. Preoperative risk analysis index for frailty predicts short-term outcomes after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20:1181–1188.
    60. Isharwal S, Johanning JM, Dwyer JG, Schimid KK, LaGrange CA. Preoperative frailty predicts postoperative complications and mortality in urology patients. World J Urol. 2017;35:21–26.
    61. Melin AA, Schmid KK, Lynch TG, et al. Preoperative frailty risk analysis index to stratify patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:683–689.
    62. Bandeen-Roche K, Seplaki CL, Huang J, et al. Frailty in older adults: a nationally representative profile in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015;70:1427–1434.
    63. Suskind AM, Finlayson E. A call for frailty screening in the preoperative setting. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:240–241.
    64. Walston J, Fedarko N, Yang H, et al. The physical and biological characterization of a frail mouse model. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008;63:391–398.
    65. Deepa SS, Bhaskaran S, Espinoza S, et al. A new mouse model of frailty: the Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase knockout mouse. Geroscience. 2017;39:187–198.
    66. Pritchard JM, Kennedy CC, Karampatos S, et al. Measuring frailty in clinical practice: a comparison of physical frailty assessment methods in a geriatric out-patient clinic. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:264.
    67. Gurlit S, Gogol M. Prehabilitation is better than cure. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019;32:108–115.
    68. Walston J, Robinson TN, Zieman S, et al. Integrating frailty research into the medical specialties-report from a U13 conference. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65:2134–2139.
    69. Rockwood K, Silvius JL, Fox RA. Comprehensive geriatric assessment. Helping your elderly patients maintain functional well-being. Postgrad Med. 1998;103:247–249, 254.
    70. Solomon DH. Geriatric assessment: methods for clinical decision making. JAMA. 1988;259:2450–2452.
    71. Gill TM, Baker DI, Gottschalk M, et al. A prehabilitation program for physically frail community-living older persons. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:394–404.
    72. Mohile SG, Xian Y, Dale W, et al. Association of a cancer diagnosis with vulnerability and frailty in older medicare beneficiaries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1206–1215.
    73. Ethun CG, Bilen MA, Jani AB, Maithel SK, Ogan K, Master VA. Frailty and cancer: implications for oncology surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:362–377.
    74. Friedman J, Lussiez A, Sullivan J, Wang S, Englesbe M. Implications of sarcopenia in major surgery. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30:175–179.

    Supplemental Digital Content

    Copyright © 2020 International Anesthesia Research Society