Search

Background Colorectal cancer is primarily a condition of older adults, and surgery is the cornerstone of treatment. As life expectancy is increasing and surgical techniques and perioperative care are developing, curative surgery is often conducted even in ageing populations. However, the risk of morbidity, functional decline, and mortality following colorectal cancer resection surgery are known to increase with increasing age. This study aims to describe real-world data about postoperative mortality and morbidity after resection surgery for colorectal cancer in the elderly (>= 70 years) compared to younger patients (< 70 years), in a Swedish setting. Methods A cohort study including all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in a Swedish region of 1.7 million inhabitants between January 2016 and May 2020. Patients were identified through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry, and all baseline and outcome variables were extracted from the registry. The following outcome measures were compared between the two age groups: 90-day mortality rates, postoperative complications, postoperative intensive care, reoperations, readmissions, and 1-year mortality. To adjust the analyses for baseline confounders in the comparison of the outcome variables, the following methods were used: marginal matching, calliper (ID matching), and logistic regression adjusted for baseline confounders. Results The cohort consisted of 5246 patients, of which 3849 (73%) underwent resection surgery. Patients that underwent resection surgery were significantly younger than those who did not (mean +/- SD, 70.9 +/- 11.4 years vs 73.7 +/- 12.8 years, p < 0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that both 90-day and 1-year mortality rates were higher in older patients that underwent resection surgery (90-day mortality OR 2.12 [95% CI 1.26-3.59], p < 0.005). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative intensive care, postoperative complications, reoperati, Funding Agencies|Department of Research and Development, Vstra Gtalandsregionen, Sweden

Background: Patients who require an emergency laparotomy suffer from high mortality and morbidity rates. Studies have shown that the standardization of perioperative management reduces complications in the short term. The aim of the present study was to report long-term mortality rates for the SMASH (Standardized perioperative Management of patients operated with acute Abdominal Surgery in a High-risk and emergency setting) study, as well as short- and long-term outcomes for different age groups within the SMASH study. Methods: A prospective intervention study was introduced in 2018, with the aim of investigating the introduction of a standardized protocol for emergency laparotomy. For 42 months, intervention patients were managed according to the protocol and outcomes were then compared with those of historical controls. Results: A total of 1344 unique patients were included (681 in the intervention group and 663 in the control group). The 90-day mortality rate was 14.1 per cent in the intervention group and 20.8 per cent in the control group (P = 0.002) and the 1-year mortality rate in adjusted analyses was 19.7 and 27.8 per cent respectively (P =< 0.001). An age-related subgroup analysis showed that the oldest patients (76 years and older, 260 in the intervention group and 240 in the control group) had a 1-year mortality rate of 29.6 and 43.8 per cent respectively (P = 0.004) and a mean duration of hospital stay of 9.9 and 11.6 days respectively (P = 0.027). Among older adults (61-75 years), the mean duration of hospital stay was 11.7 days in the intervention group compared with 15.1 days in the control group (P = 0.009) and the mean duration of ICU care was reduced to 4.49 days compared with 7.29 days (P = 0.046). Conclusion: The standardized protocol associated with an emergency laparotomy appears to be beneficial, even in the long term. For elderly patients, it appears to reduce mortality rates and the durations of hospital stay and ICU care., Funding Agencies|Department of Research and Development, NU Hospital Group; Local Research and Development Council Fyrbodal [VGFOUFBD-803271]; W&M Lundgren Science Foundation [2019-2883]

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill.Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients >65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review.Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients quality of life is war, Funding Agencies|Boehringer Ingelheim; MSD; Astra Zeneca

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill. Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients > 65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review. Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients’ quality of life is wa

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill. Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients > 65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review. Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients’ quality of life is wa

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill.Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients >65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review.Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients quality of life is war, Funding Agencies|Boehringer Ingelheim; MSD; Astra Zeneca

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill. Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients > 65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review. Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients’ quality of life is wa

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is a large and growing group of older adults. Frailty is known as an important discriminatory factor for poor outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has become a frequently used frailty instrument in different clinical settings and health care sectors, and it has shown good predictive validity. The aims of this study were to describe and validate the translation and cultural adaptation of the CFS into Swedish (CFS-SWE), and to test the inter-rater reliability (IRR) for registered nurses using the CFS-SWE. METHODS: An observational study design was employed. The ISPOR principles were used for the translation, linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of the scale. To test the IRR, 12 participants were asked to rate 10 clinical case vignettes using the CFS-SWE. The IRR was assessed using intraclass correlation and Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient test. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated and culturally adapted into Swedish and is presented in its final form. The IRR for all raters, measured by an intraclass correlation test, resulted in an absolute agreement value among the raters of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.929-0.991) and a consistency value of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.953-0.994), which indicates excellent reliability. Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient for all raters was 0.969 (95% CI: 0.917-0.988), indicating near-perfect agreement. The sensitivity of the reliability was examined by separately testing the IRR of the group of specialised registered nurses and non-specialised registered nurses respectively, with consistent and similar results. CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated, linguistically validated and culturally adapted into Swedish following a well-established standard technique. The IRR was excellent, judged by two established, separately used, reliability tests. The reliability test results did not differ between non-specialised and specialised registered nurses. However, the use of cas, CC-BY 4.0

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is a large and growing group of older adults. Frailty is known as an important discriminatory factor for poor outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has become a frequently used frailty instrument in different clinical settings and health care sectors, and it has shown good predictive validity. The aims of this study were to describe and validate the translation and cultural adaptation of the CFS into Swedish (CFS-SWE), and to test the inter-rater reliability (IRR) for registered nurses using the CFS-SWE. METHODS: An observational study design was employed. The ISPOR principles were used for the translation, linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of the scale. To test the IRR, 12 participants were asked to rate 10 clinical case vignettes using the CFS-SWE. The IRR was assessed using intraclass correlation and Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient test. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated and culturally adapted into Swedish and is presented in its final form. The IRR for all raters, measured by an intraclass correlation test, resulted in an absolute agreement value among the raters of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.929-0.991) and a consistency value of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.953-0.994), which indicates excellent reliability. Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient for all raters was 0.969 (95% CI: 0.917-0.988), indicating near-perfect agreement. The sensitivity of the reliability was examined by separately testing the IRR of the group of specialised registered nurses and non-specialised registered nurses respectively, with consistent and similar results. CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated, linguistically validated and culturally adapted into Swedish following a well-established standard technique. The IRR was excellent, judged by two established, separately used, reliability tests. The reliability test results did not differ between non-specialised and specialised registered nurses. However, the use of cas, CC-BY 4.0

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is a large and growing group of older adults. Frailty is known as an important discriminatory factor for poor outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has become a frequently used frailty instrument in different clinical settings and health care sectors, and it has shown good predictive validity. The aims of this study were to describe and validate the translation and cultural adaptation of the CFS into Swedish (CFS-SWE), and to test the inter-rater reliability (IRR) for registered nurses using the CFS-SWE. METHODS: An observational study design was employed. The ISPOR principles were used for the translation, linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of the scale. To test the IRR, 12 participants were asked to rate 10 clinical case vignettes using the CFS-SWE. The IRR was assessed using intraclass correlation and Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient test. RESULTS: The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated and culturally adapted into Swedish and is presented in its final form. The IRR for all raters, measured by an intraclass correlation test, resulted in an absolute agreement value among the raters of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.929-0.991) and a consistency value of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.953-0.994), which indicates excellent reliability. Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient for all raters was 0.969 (95% CI: 0.917-0.988), indicating near-perfect agreement. The sensitivity of the reliability was examined by separately testing the IRR of the group of specialised registered nurses and non-specialised registered nurses respectively, with consistent and similar results. CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty Scale was translated, linguistically validated and culturally adapted into Swedish following a well-established standard technique. The IRR was excellent, judged by two established, separately used, reliability tests. The reliability test results did not differ between non-specialised and specialised registered nurses. However, the use of cas, CC-BY 4.0

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill.Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients >65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review.Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients quality of life is war, Funding Agencies|Boehringer Ingelheim; MSD; Astra Zeneca

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill.Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients >65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review.Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients quality of life is war, Funding Agencies|Boehringer Ingelheim; MSD; Astra Zeneca

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill. Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients > 65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review. Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients’ quality of life is wa

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill.Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients >65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review.Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients quality of life is war, Funding Agencies|Boehringer Ingelheim; MSD; Astra Zeneca

Background: Frail older adults experience higher rates of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, assessing pre-hospital frailty early in the course of care is essential to identify the most vulnerable patients and determine their risk of deterioration. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a frailty assessment tool that evaluates pre-hospital mobility, energy, physical activity, and function to generate a score that ranges from very fit to terminally ill. Purpose: To synthesize the evidence of the association between the CFS degree and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, length of hospital stay, adverse discharge destination, and functional decline in patients > 65 years in acute clinical settings. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus) were searched for prospective or retrospective studies reporting a relationship between pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS and the outcomes of interest from database inception to April 2020. Results: Our search yielded 756 articles, of which 29 studies were included in this review (15 were at moderate risk and 14 at low risk of bias). The included studies represented 26 cohorts from 25 countries (N = 44166) published between 2011 and 2020. All included studies showed that pre-hospital frailty according to the CFS is an independent predictor of all adverse health outcomes included in the review. Conclusion: A primary purpose of the CFS is to grade clinically increased risk (i.e. risk stratification). Our results report the accumulated knowledge on the risk-predictive performance of the CFS and highlight the importance of routinely including frailty assessments, such as the CFS, to estimate biological age, improve risk assessments, and assist clinical decision-making in older adults in acute care. Further research into the potential of the CFS and whether implementing the CFS in routine practice will improve care and patients’ quality of life is wa

Hanna Falk Erhag,1– 3 Gudny Guðnadóttir,3 Joakim Alfredsson,4 Tommy Cederholm,5,6 Niklas Ekerstad,7,8 Dorota Religa,9,10 Bengt Nellgård,11 Katarina Wilhelmson2,3,12 1Neuropsychiatric Epidemiology Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 2Centre for Ageing and Health (Agecap), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 3Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Acute Medicine and Geriatrics, Gothenburg, Sweden; 4Department of Cardiology, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Unit of Cardiovascular Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; 5Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 6Theme Inflammation and Aging, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; 7Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Unit of Health Care Analysis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; 8The Research and Development Unit, NU Hospital Group, Trollhättan, Sweden; 9Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society, Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 10Division for Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; 11Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Institute of Clinical Studies, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 12Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenCorrespondence: Hanna Falk Erhag, Neuropsychiatric Epidemiology Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Wallinsgatan 6, Gothenburg, SE 431 41, Sweden, Tel +46 760 476888, Fax +46 31 786 60 77, Email hanna.falk@gu.seBackground: Frail older adults e

BackgroundWorldwide, there is a large and growing group of older adults. Frailty is known as an important discriminatory factor for poor outcomes. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has become a frequently used frailty instrument in different clinical settings and health care sectors, and it has shown good predictive validity. The aims of this study were to describe and validate the translation and cultural adaptation of the CFS into Swedish (CFS-SWE), and to test the inter-rater reliability (IRR) for registered nurses using the CFS-SWE.MethodsAn observational study design was employed. The ISPOR principles were used for the translation, linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of the scale. To test the IRR, 12 participants were asked to rate 10 clinical case vignettes using the CFS-SWE. The IRR was assessed using intraclass correlation and Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient test.ResultsThe Clinical Frailty Scale was translated and culturally adapted into Swedish and is presented in its final form. The IRR for all raters, measured by an intraclass correlation test, resulted in an absolute agreement value among the raters of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.929-0.991) and a consistency value of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.953-0.994), which indicates excellent reliability. Krippendorff's alpha agreement coefficient for all raters was 0.969 (95% CI: 0.917-0.988), indicating near-perfect agreement. The sensitivity of the reliability was examined by separately testing the IRR of the group of specialised registered nurses and non-specialised registered nurses respectively, with consistent and similar results.ConclusionThe Clinical Frailty Scale was translated, linguistically validated and culturally adapted into Swedish following a well-established standard technique. The IRR was excellent, judged by two established, separately used, reliability tests. The reliability test results did not differ between non-specialised and specialised registered nurses. However, the use of case vignettes, Funding Agencies|Linkping University

Aims Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Aims Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background In the future, we can expect an increase in older patients in emergency departments (ED) and acute wards. The main purpose of this study was to identify predictors of short- and long-term mortality in the ED and at hospital discharge. Methods This is a retrospective, observational, single-center, cohort study, involving critically ill older adults, recruited consecutively in an ED. The primary outcome was mortality. All patients were followed for 6.5-7.5 years. The Cox proportional hazards model was used. Results Regarding all critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED (n = 402), there was a significant association between mortality at 30 days after ED admission and unconsciousness on admission (HR 3.14, 95% CI 2.09-4.74), hypoxia on admission (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.69-3.74) and age (HR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), (all p < 0.001). Of 402 critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED, 303 were discharged alive from hospital. There was a significant association between long-term mortality and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 2 (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46-2.48), length of stay (LOS) > 7 days (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32-2.23), discharge diagnosis of pneumonia (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.21) and age (HR 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), (all p < 0.001). The only symptom or vital sign associated with long-term mortality was hypoxia on admission (HR 1.70, 05% CI 1.30-2.22). Conclusions Among critically ill older adults admitted to an ED and discharged alive the following factors were predictive of long-term mortality: CCI > 2, LOS > 7 days, hypoxia on admission, discharge diagnosis of pneumonia and age. The following factors were predictive of mortality at 30 days after ED admission: unconsciousness on admission, hypoxia and age. These data might be clinically relevant when it comes to individualized care planning, which should take account of risk prediction and estimated, Funding Agencies|Linkoping University; Fyrbodal Research and Development Council, Region Vastra Gotaland, Sweden

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1–3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5–9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (allP < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30–4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI1.41–3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1–3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5–9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (allP < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30–4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI1.41–3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background In the future, we can expect an increase in older patients in emergency departments (ED) and acute wards. The main purpose of this study was to identify predictors of short- and long-term mortality in the ED and at hospital discharge. Methods This is a retrospective, observational, single-center, cohort study, involving critically ill older adults, recruited consecutively in an ED. The primary outcome was mortality. All patients were followed for 6.5-7.5 years. The Cox proportional hazards model was used. Results Regarding all critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED (n = 402), there was a significant association between mortality at 30 days after ED admission and unconsciousness on admission (HR 3.14, 95% CI 2.09-4.74), hypoxia on admission (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.69-3.74) and age (HR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), (all p < 0.001). Of 402 critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED, 303 were discharged alive from hospital. There was a significant association between long-term mortality and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 2 (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46-2.48), length of stay (LOS) > 7 days (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32-2.23), discharge diagnosis of pneumonia (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.21) and age (HR 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), (all p < 0.001). The only symptom or vital sign associated with long-term mortality was hypoxia on admission (HR 1.70, 05% CI 1.30-2.22). Conclusions Among critically ill older adults admitted to an ED and discharged alive the following factors were predictive of long-term mortality: CCI > 2, LOS > 7 days, hypoxia on admission, discharge diagnosis of pneumonia and age. The following factors were predictive of mortality at 30 days after ED admission: unconsciousness on admission, hypoxia and age. These data might be clinically relevant when it comes to individualized care planning, which should take account of risk prediction and estimated, Funding Agencies|Linkoping University; Fyrbodal Research and Development Council, Region Vastra Gotaland, Sweden

Aims Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1–3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5–9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (allP < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30–4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI1.41–3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a median age of 72-75 years at diagnosis. Curative treatment usually involves surgery; if left untreated, symptoms may require emergency surgery. Therefore, most patients will be accepted for surgery, despite of high age or comorbidity. It is known that elderly patients suffer higher risks after surgery than younger patients, in terms of complications and mortality. Assessing frailty and offering frail elderly patients individualized treatment according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and care concept has been shown to improve the outcome for frail elderly patients in other clinical contexts. Methods: This randomized controlled multicentre trial aims to investigate if CGA and care prior to curatively intended surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients will improve postoperative outcome. All patients >= 70 years with surgically curable CRC will be screened for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9). Frail patients will be offered inclusion. Randomization is stratified for colon or rectal cancer. Patients in the intervention group are, in addition to standard protocol, treated according to CGA and care. This consists of individualized assessments and interventions, established by a multiprofessional team. Patients in the control group are treated according to best known practice as stipulated by Swedish colorectal cancer treatment guidelines, within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are the length of hospital stay and total number of hospital days within 3 months, discharge destination, 30-day readmission, ADL, safe medication assessment, CFS-9 score, complications, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 2-month follow-up in comparison to baseline measurements, health economical calculations including cost-effectiveness analysis based on costs of hospital care and primary car, Funding Agencies|University of Gothenburg; Department of Research and Development, Fyrbodal [VGFOUFBD-937668]; Vastra Gotalandsregionen [VGFOUREG-940671, VGFOUREG-931040]; Lions Cancer Research Fund of Western Sweden

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a median age of 72-75 years at diagnosis. Curative treatment usually involves surgery; if left untreated, symptoms may require emergency surgery. Therefore, most patients will be accepted for surgery, despite of high age or comorbidity. It is known that elderly patients suffer higher risks after surgery than younger patients, in terms of complications and mortality. Assessing frailty and offering frail elderly patients individualized treatment according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and care concept has been shown to improve the outcome for frail elderly patients in other clinical contexts. Methods: This randomized controlled multicentre trial aims to investigate if CGA and care prior to curatively intended surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients will improve postoperative outcome. All patients >= 70 years with surgically curable CRC will be screened for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9). Frail patients will be offered inclusion. Randomization is stratified for colon or rectal cancer. Patients in the intervention group are, in addition to standard protocol, treated according to CGA and care. This consists of individualized assessments and interventions, established by a multiprofessional team. Patients in the control group are treated according to best known practice as stipulated by Swedish colorectal cancer treatment guidelines, within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are the length of hospital stay and total number of hospital days within 3 months, discharge destination, 30-day readmission, ADL, safe medication assessment, CFS-9 score, complications, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 2-month follow-up in comparison to baseline measurements, health economical calculations including cost-effectiveness analysis based on costs of hospital care and primary car, Funding Agencies|University of Gothenburg; Department of Research and Development, Fyrbodal [VGFOUFBD-937668]; Vastra Gotalandsregionen [VGFOUREG-940671, VGFOUREG-931040]; Lions Cancer Research Fund of Western Sweden

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a median age of 72-75 years at diagnosis. Curative treatment usually involves surgery; if left untreated, symptoms may require emergency surgery. Therefore, most patients will be accepted for surgery, despite of high age or comorbidity. It is known that elderly patients suffer higher risks after surgery than younger patients, in terms of complications and mortality. Assessing frailty and offering frail elderly patients individualized treatment according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and care concept has been shown to improve the outcome for frail elderly patients in other clinical contexts. Methods: This randomized controlled multicentre trial aims to investigate if CGA and care prior to curatively intended surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients will improve postoperative outcome. All patients >= 70 years with surgically curable CRC will be screened for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9). Frail patients will be offered inclusion. Randomization is stratified for colon or rectal cancer. Patients in the intervention group are, in addition to standard protocol, treated according to CGA and care. This consists of individualized assessments and interventions, established by a multiprofessional team. Patients in the control group are treated according to best known practice as stipulated by Swedish colorectal cancer treatment guidelines, within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are the length of hospital stay and total number of hospital days within 3 months, discharge destination, 30-day readmission, ADL, safe medication assessment, CFS-9 score, complications, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 2-month follow-up in comparison to baseline measurements, health economical calculations including cost-effectiveness analysis based on costs of hospital care and primary car, Funding Agencies|University of Gothenburg; Department of Research and Development, Fyrbodal [VGFOUFBD-937668]; Vastra Gotalandsregionen [VGFOUREG-940671, VGFOUREG-931040]; Lions Cancer Research Fund of Western Sweden

Aims Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background In the future, we can expect an increase in older patients in emergency departments (ED) and acute wards. The main purpose of this study was to identify predictors of short- and long-term mortality in the ED and at hospital discharge. Methods This is a retrospective, observational, single-center, cohort study, involving critically ill older adults, recruited consecutively in an ED. The primary outcome was mortality. All patients were followed for 6.5-7.5 years. The Cox proportional hazards model was used. Results Regarding all critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED (n = 402), there was a significant association between mortality at 30 days after ED admission and unconsciousness on admission (HR 3.14, 95% CI 2.09-4.74), hypoxia on admission (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.69-3.74) and age (HR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), (all p < 0.001). Of 402 critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED, 303 were discharged alive from hospital. There was a significant association between long-term mortality and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 2 (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46-2.48), length of stay (LOS) > 7 days (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32-2.23), discharge diagnosis of pneumonia (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.21) and age (HR 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), (all p < 0.001). The only symptom or vital sign associated with long-term mortality was hypoxia on admission (HR 1.70, 05% CI 1.30-2.22). Conclusions Among critically ill older adults admitted to an ED and discharged alive the following factors were predictive of long-term mortality: CCI > 2, LOS > 7 days, hypoxia on admission, discharge diagnosis of pneumonia and age. The following factors were predictive of mortality at 30 days after ED admission: unconsciousness on admission, hypoxia and age. These data might be clinically relevant when it comes to individualized care planning, which should take account of risk prediction and estimated, Funding Agencies|Linkoping University; Fyrbodal Research and Development Council, Region Vastra Gotaland, Sweden

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

The term frailty denotes a multi-dimensional syndrome characterised by reduced physiological reserves and increased vulnerability. Frailty may be used as a marker of biological age, distinct from chronological age. There are several instruments for frailty assessment. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is probably the most commonly used in the acute care context. It is a 9-level scale, derived from the accumulated deficit model of frailty, which combines comorbidity, disability, and cognitive impairment. The CFS assessment is fast and easy to implement in daily clinical practice. The CFS is relevant for risk stratification, and may also be used as a screening instrument to identify frail patients suitable for further geriatric evaluation, i.e. a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). By providing information on long-term prognosis, it may improve informed decision-making on an individual basis., Skörhet (frailty) är ett kliniskt syndrom med sviktandefysiologiska reserver och ökad sårbarhet för påfrestningar.b Clinical frailty scale (CFS) är ett av de vanligaste skattningsinstrumentenför skörhet.b CFS är en markör för biologisk ålder, och skalanbygger på klinisk bedömning av samsjuklighet, ADL ochkognitiv förmåga.b CFS kan användas som stöd för riskstratifiering ochför att göra ett första urval av vilka personer som kangagnas av övergripande geriatrisk handläggning (comprehensivegeriatric assessment, CGA).b CFS kan användas på klinisk nivå som ett av flera stödför individualiserad behandling.b CFS kan bidra till att individer med hög kronologiskålder inte slentrianmässigt ges låg prioritet beträffandeolika interventioner.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a median age of 72-75 years at diagnosis. Curative treatment usually involves surgery; if left untreated, symptoms may require emergency surgery. Therefore, most patients will be accepted for surgery, despite of high age or comorbidity. It is known that elderly patients suffer higher risks after surgery than younger patients, in terms of complications and mortality. Assessing frailty and offering frail elderly patients individualized treatment according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and care concept has been shown to improve the outcome for frail elderly patients in other clinical contexts. Methods: This randomized controlled multicentre trial aims to investigate if CGA and care prior to curatively intended surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients will improve postoperative outcome. All patients >= 70 years with surgically curable CRC will be screened for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9). Frail patients will be offered inclusion. Randomization is stratified for colon or rectal cancer. Patients in the intervention group are, in addition to standard protocol, treated according to CGA and care. This consists of individualized assessments and interventions, established by a multiprofessional team. Patients in the control group are treated according to best known practice as stipulated by Swedish colorectal cancer treatment guidelines, within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are the length of hospital stay and total number of hospital days within 3 months, discharge destination, 30-day readmission, ADL, safe medication assessment, CFS-9 score, complications, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 2-month follow-up in comparison to baseline measurements, health economical calculations including cost-effectiveness analysis based on costs of hospital care and primary car, Funding Agencies|University of Gothenburg; Department of Research and Development, Fyrbodal [VGFOUFBD-937668]; Vastra Gotalandsregionen [VGFOUREG-940671, VGFOUREG-931040]; Lions Cancer Research Fund of Western Sweden

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with a median age of 72-75 years at diagnosis. Curative treatment usually involves surgery; if left untreated, symptoms may require emergency surgery. Therefore, most patients will be accepted for surgery, despite of high age or comorbidity. It is known that elderly patients suffer higher risks after surgery than younger patients, in terms of complications and mortality. Assessing frailty and offering frail elderly patients individualized treatment according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and care concept has been shown to improve the outcome for frail elderly patients in other clinical contexts. Methods: This randomized controlled multicentre trial aims to investigate if CGA and care prior to curatively intended surgery for CRC in frail elderly patients will improve postoperative outcome. All patients >= 70 years with surgically curable CRC will be screened for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9). Frail patients will be offered inclusion. Randomization is stratified for colon or rectal cancer. Patients in the intervention group are, in addition to standard protocol, treated according to CGA and care. This consists of individualized assessments and interventions, established by a multiprofessional team. Patients in the control group are treated according to best known practice as stipulated by Swedish colorectal cancer treatment guidelines, within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) setting. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are the length of hospital stay and total number of hospital days within 3 months, discharge destination, 30-day readmission, ADL, safe medication assessment, CFS-9 score, complications, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) at 2-month follow-up in comparison to baseline measurements, health economical calculations including cost-effectiveness analysis based on costs of hospital care and primary car, Funding Agencies|University of Gothenburg; Department of Research and Development, Fyrbodal [VGFOUFBD-937668]; Vastra Gotalandsregionen [VGFOUREG-940671, VGFOUREG-931040]; Lions Cancer Research Fund of Western Sweden

Aims Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1–3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5–9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (allP < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30–4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI1.41–3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1–3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5–9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (allP < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30–4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI1.41–3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Aims Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and results An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Background In the future, we can expect an increase in older patients in emergency departments (ED) and acute wards. The main purpose of this study was to identify predictors of short- and long-term mortality in the ED and at hospital discharge. Methods This is a retrospective, observational, single-center, cohort study, involving critically ill older adults, recruited consecutively in an ED. The primary outcome was mortality. All patients were followed for 6.5-7.5 years. The Cox proportional hazards model was used. Results Regarding all critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED (n = 402), there was a significant association between mortality at 30 days after ED admission and unconsciousness on admission (HR 3.14, 95% CI 2.09-4.74), hypoxia on admission (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.69-3.74) and age (HR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), (all p < 0.001). Of 402 critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED, 303 were discharged alive from hospital. There was a significant association between long-term mortality and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 2 (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46-2.48), length of stay (LOS) > 7 days (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32-2.23), discharge diagnosis of pneumonia (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.21) and age (HR 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), (all p < 0.001). The only symptom or vital sign associated with long-term mortality was hypoxia on admission (HR 1.70, 05% CI 1.30-2.22). Conclusions Among critically ill older adults admitted to an ED and discharged alive the following factors were predictive of long-term mortality: CCI > 2, LOS > 7 days, hypoxia on admission, discharge diagnosis of pneumonia and age. The following factors were predictive of mortality at 30 days after ED admission: unconsciousness on admission, hypoxia and age. These data might be clinically relevant when it comes to individualized care planning, which should take account of risk prediction and estimated, Funding Agencies|Linkoping University; Fyrbodal Research and Development Council, Region Vastra Gotaland, Sweden

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Background In the future, we can expect an increase in older patients in emergency departments (ED) and acute wards. The main purpose of this study was to identify predictors of short- and long-term mortality in the ED and at hospital discharge. Methods This is a retrospective, observational, single-center, cohort study, involving critically ill older adults, recruited consecutively in an ED. The primary outcome was mortality. All patients were followed for 6.5-7.5 years. The Cox proportional hazards model was used. Results Regarding all critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED (n = 402), there was a significant association between mortality at 30 days after ED admission and unconsciousness on admission (HR 3.14, 95% CI 2.09-4.74), hypoxia on admission (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.69-3.74) and age (HR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), (all p < 0.001). Of 402 critically ill patients aged >= 70 years and identified in the ED, 303 were discharged alive from hospital. There was a significant association between long-term mortality and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 2 (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46-2.48), length of stay (LOS) > 7 days (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32-2.23), discharge diagnosis of pneumonia (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.21) and age (HR 1.08 per year, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), (all p < 0.001). The only symptom or vital sign associated with long-term mortality was hypoxia on admission (HR 1.70, 05% CI 1.30-2.22). Conclusions Among critically ill older adults admitted to an ED and discharged alive the following factors were predictive of long-term mortality: CCI > 2, LOS > 7 days, hypoxia on admission, discharge diagnosis of pneumonia and age. The following factors were predictive of mortality at 30 days after ED admission: unconsciousness on admission, hypoxia and age. These data might be clinically relevant when it comes to individualized care planning, which should take account of risk prediction and estimated, Funding Agencies|Linkoping University; Fyrbodal Research and Development Council, Region Vastra Gotaland, Sweden

Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and Results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and Results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and Results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.

Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI. Methods and Results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1-3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5-9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (all P < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30-4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41-3.02). Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.