Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above

Abstract Background The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is widely utilized for risk stratification in emergency departments (EDs); however, its predictive value across various age groups remains unclear. Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed 6,310 patients in the ED aged ≥ 65 yea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yunhyung Choi, Ho Sub Chung, Ji Yeon Lim, Keon Kim, Yoon Hee Choi, Dong Hoon Lee, Sung Jin Bae
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-07-01
Series:BMC Geriatrics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06092-4
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849334584590729216
author Yunhyung Choi
Ho Sub Chung
Ji Yeon Lim
Keon Kim
Yoon Hee Choi
Dong Hoon Lee
Sung Jin Bae
author_facet Yunhyung Choi
Ho Sub Chung
Ji Yeon Lim
Keon Kim
Yoon Hee Choi
Dong Hoon Lee
Sung Jin Bae
author_sort Yunhyung Choi
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is widely utilized for risk stratification in emergency departments (EDs); however, its predictive value across various age groups remains unclear. Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed 6,310 patients in the ED aged ≥ 65 years, categorized into young-old (65–74 years, n = 2,750), middle-old (75–84 years, n = 2,400), and old-old (≥ 85 years, n = 1,160) groups. According to CFS, patients were categorized as robust (scores 1–3), pre-frail (score 4), or frail (scores 5–9). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the independent association between frailty categories and clinical outcomes (ICU admission and in-hospital mortality), adjusting for age, sex, and illness severity. Predictive performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results The predictive value of CFS varied significantly across age groups. In the young-old group, frail status was independently associated with increased ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.076–2.062) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.232, 95% CI 1.738–6.009). The middle-old group demonstrated the strongest relationship with mortality for frail patients (aOR 5.361, 95% CI 2.872–10.007), but no significant association with ICU admission after adjustment. In the old-old group, neither pre-frail nor frail status significantly predicted outcomes. AUROC analysis showed the highest discriminative capability for ICU admission in the young-old group (0.616, 95% CI 0.597–0.634) and for mortality in the middle-old group (0.730, 95% CI 0.712–0.748), with reduced predictive value observed in the old-old group. Conclusions The prognostic value of CFS varies significantly by age group, demonstrating the strongest performance in young-old patients and diminishing predictive value in the old-old group. These findings suggest the need for age-specific frailty assessment strategies in emergency care, with additional clinical indicators potentially necessary for risk stratification in the oldest patients. Clinical trial number Not applicable.
format Article
id doaj-art-02db9e59b66f4e1fa19cbe19556c3801
institution Kabale University
issn 1471-2318
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Geriatrics
spelling doaj-art-02db9e59b66f4e1fa19cbe19556c38012025-08-20T03:45:32ZengBMCBMC Geriatrics1471-23182025-07-0125111110.1186/s12877-025-06092-4Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and aboveYunhyung Choi0Ho Sub Chung1Ji Yeon Lim2Keon Kim3Yoon Hee Choi4Dong Hoon Lee5Sung Jin Bae6Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang UniversityDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang UniversityDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Ewha Womans UniversityDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Ewha Womans UniversityDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University 1071Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang UniversityDepartment of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang UniversityAbstract Background The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is widely utilized for risk stratification in emergency departments (EDs); however, its predictive value across various age groups remains unclear. Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed 6,310 patients in the ED aged ≥ 65 years, categorized into young-old (65–74 years, n = 2,750), middle-old (75–84 years, n = 2,400), and old-old (≥ 85 years, n = 1,160) groups. According to CFS, patients were categorized as robust (scores 1–3), pre-frail (score 4), or frail (scores 5–9). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the independent association between frailty categories and clinical outcomes (ICU admission and in-hospital mortality), adjusting for age, sex, and illness severity. Predictive performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results The predictive value of CFS varied significantly across age groups. In the young-old group, frail status was independently associated with increased ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.076–2.062) and in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.232, 95% CI 1.738–6.009). The middle-old group demonstrated the strongest relationship with mortality for frail patients (aOR 5.361, 95% CI 2.872–10.007), but no significant association with ICU admission after adjustment. In the old-old group, neither pre-frail nor frail status significantly predicted outcomes. AUROC analysis showed the highest discriminative capability for ICU admission in the young-old group (0.616, 95% CI 0.597–0.634) and for mortality in the middle-old group (0.730, 95% CI 0.712–0.748), with reduced predictive value observed in the old-old group. Conclusions The prognostic value of CFS varies significantly by age group, demonstrating the strongest performance in young-old patients and diminishing predictive value in the old-old group. These findings suggest the need for age-specific frailty assessment strategies in emergency care, with additional clinical indicators potentially necessary for risk stratification in the oldest patients. Clinical trial number Not applicable.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06092-4FrailtyClinical frailty scaleEmergency departmentOlder patientsRisk stratification
spellingShingle Yunhyung Choi
Ho Sub Chung
Ji Yeon Lim
Keon Kim
Yoon Hee Choi
Dong Hoon Lee
Sung Jin Bae
Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
BMC Geriatrics
Frailty
Clinical frailty scale
Emergency department
Older patients
Risk stratification
title Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
title_full Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
title_fullStr Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
title_short Prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
title_sort prognostic value of frailty across age groups in emergency department patients aged 65 and above
topic Frailty
Clinical frailty scale
Emergency department
Older patients
Risk stratification
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06092-4
work_keys_str_mv AT yunhyungchoi prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove
AT hosubchung prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove
AT jiyeonlim prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove
AT keonkim prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove
AT yoonheechoi prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove
AT donghoonlee prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove
AT sungjinbae prognosticvalueoffrailtyacrossagegroupsinemergencydepartmentpatientsaged65andabove