Article: Optimising the ISAR-HP to screen efficiently for functional decline in older patients (abstract) - November 2017 - NJM
Issue: 2017 > November > original article

Optimising the ISAR-HP to screen efficiently for functional decline in older patients



ORIGINAL ARTICLE
J. de Gelder, E. Haenen, J.A. Lucke, H.G. Klop, L.C. Blomaard, R.A.J. Smit, K. Mesri, B. de Groot, A.J. Fogteloo, S. Anten, G.J. Blauw, S.P. Mooijaart
AbstractFull textPDF

Abstract

Introduction: The Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalised Patients (ISAR-HP) has recently been included in guidelines as a frailty indicator to identify patients for comprehensive geriatric assessment. Previous studies showed that the conventional cut-off score incorrectly classifies a high percentage of patients as high risk. We aimed to optimise the predictive value of ISAR-HP by using different cut-offs in older acutely hospitalised patients.
Methods: A prospective follow-up study was performed in two Dutch hospitals. Acutely hospitalised patients aged ≥ 70 years were included. Demographics, illness severity parameters, geriatric measurements and the ISAR-HP scores were obtained at baseline. The primary outcome was a combined end point of functional decline or mortality during 90-day follow-up.
Results: In total 765 acutely hospitalised older patients were included, with a median age of 79 years, of whom 276 (36.1%) experienced functional decline or mortality. The conventional ISAR-HP cut-off of ≥ 2 assigned 432/765 patients (56.5%) as high risk, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.49 (95%CI 0.45-0.54) and a negative predictive value of 0.81 (95%CI 0.76-0.85). Thus, 51% of those whom the ISAR-HP denoted as high risk did not experience the outcome of interest. Raising the cut-off to ≥ 4 assigned 205/765 patients (26.8%) as high risk, with a marginally increased PPV to 0.55 (95%CI 0.48-0.62).
Conclusion: The ISAR-HP with the conventional cut-off of ≥ 2 incorrectly identifies a large group of patients at high risk for functional decline or mortality and raising the cut-off to 4 only marginally improved performance. Caution is warranted to ensure efficient screening and follow-up interventions.