Analysis of influencing factors for frailty in geriatric syndrome patients and the impact of frailty decompensation on major adverse events


Abstract

Background: This study aims to identify risk factors and develop a predictive model for frailty progression in older adults with geriatric conditions. It assesses the impact of cardiac function-related frailty decompensation on adverse events, compares outcomes between compensated and decompensated (LVEF ≤ 52.5%) subgroups, and elucidates the clinical and prognostic significance of decompensation. The findings aim to provide a scientific basis for early identification and intervention in frail elderly individuals.

Methods: From January 2022 to June 2024, a total of 538 elderly patients diagnosed with geriatric syndromes were consecutively enrolled from The Affiliated Chuzhou Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Participants were classified into frail and non-frail groups based on the Fried phenotype criteria. The frailty group was further stratified into compensated (LVEF > 52.5%) and decompensated (LVEF ≤ 52.5%) subgroups using the LVEF threshold derived from ROC curve analysis. The median follow-up duration was 24 months (interquartile range: 18–30 months). Multivariate Cox regression was employed to identify independent predictors of frailty progression, and the predictive performance of the model was evaluated using ROC analysis. The association between frailty decompensation and adverse clinical outcomes, as well as hospitalization frequency, was assessed using the χ² test and Spearman correlation analysis.

Results: Of the 538 patients, 237 (44.05%) were identified as frail. Independent risk factors for frailty progression included advanced age, lower Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) scores, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), low serum albumin levels, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III–IV, and comorbid anxiety or depression. ROC analysis identified an optimal LVEF threshold of 52.5% for predicting frailty decompensation (AUC = 0.852, sensitivity = 0.805, specificity = 0.835). Compared with the compensated subgroup, the decompensated subgroup exhibited significantly higher rates of urinary incontinence (30.34% vs. 16.89%, P = 0.015), all-cause mortality (43.82% vs. 23.65%, P = 0.008), stroke (48.31% vs. 33.11%, P = 0.020), and cardiovascular events (64.04% vs. 44.59%, P = 0.004). Hospitalization frequency was positively correlated with frailty decompensation (Spearman’s rho = 0.620, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Frailty is highly prevalent among elderly patients with geriatric syndromes. Advanced age, malnutrition, psychological comorbidities, and impaired cardiac function are significant contributors to frailty progression. An LVEF threshold of ≤52.5% effectively predicts frailty decompensation and is strongly associated with increased risks of major adverse events and hospitalization frequency. Early identification and targeted intervention for frailty decompensation may significantly improve clinical outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].