Search

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.

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.