Assessment of frailty status in non-geriatric peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients

Emre Yaşar; İrem Pembegül

Article Details

Assessment of frailty status in non-geriatric peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients

Authors:

Emre Yaşar | İrem Pembegül

Publisher:

MediHealth Academy Yayıncılık

Main Topics:

Nefroloji

Journal:

Anatolian Current Medical Journal Vol.7 Issue 2, pp.239-245

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343195

pISSN:

2718-0115

Keywords:

Abstract:

 Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare frailty status in non-geriatric hemodialysis HD and peritoneal dialysis PD patients and to assess whether there is a difference between frail and non-frail patients in HD and PD patients. Methods: 28 PD and 28 HD patients were included in this cross-sectional study. The Edmonton Frailty Scale EFS was used to assess frailty status, including questions on cognition, general health status, addiction, social support, medication, nutrition, depression and sphincter continence, and a physical test assessing standing and walking. Results: The mean age was 51.39.6 years and 24 43 of the individuals were female. There was no difference between HD and PD patients in terms of EFS score. Twelve 43 of HD patients and 10 36 of PD patients were found to be frail p0.784. There was a positive correlation between age and EFS score in both HD and PD patients r0.896, p0.001, r0.661, p0.001, respectively. In HD patients, there was a correlation between the EFS score and HbA1c r0.570, p0.002. In HD patients, frail patients were older, had lower creatinine values and higher HbA1c levels p0.001, p0.008, and p0.006, respectively, while in PD patients, frail patients were older p0.001. Conclusion: There was no difference in frailty between HD and PD patients. It should be noted that frailty is common in nongeriatric dialysis patients. Measuring frailty may help clinicians to identify vulnerable patients and intervene early to mitigate adverse outcomes.

 Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare frailty status in non-geriatric hemodialysis HD and peritoneal dialysis PD patients and to assess whether there is a difference between frail and non-frail patients in HD and PD patients. Methods: 28 PD and 28 HD patients were included in this cross-sectional study. The Edmonton Frailty Scale EFS was used to assess frailty status, including questions on cognition, general health status, addiction, social support, medication, nutrition, depression and sphincter continence, and a physical test assessing standing and walking. Results: The mean age was 51.39.6 years and 24 43 of the individuals were female. There was no difference between HD and PD patients in terms of EFS score. Twelve 43 of HD patients and 10 36 of PD patients were found to be frail p0.784. There was a positive correlation between age and EFS score in both HD and PD patients r0.896, p0.001, r0.661, p0.001, respectively. In HD patients, there was a correlation between the EFS score and HbA1c r0.570, p0.002. In HD patients, frail patients were older, had lower creatinine values and higher HbA1c levels p0.001, p0.008, and p0.006, respectively, while in PD patients, frail patients were older p0.001. Conclusion: There was no difference in frailty between HD and PD patients. It should be noted that frailty is common in nongeriatric dialysis patients. Measuring frailty may help clinicians to identify vulnerable patients and intervene early to mitigate adverse outcomes.

 Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare frailty status in non-geriatric hemodialysis HD and peritoneal dialysis PD patients and to assess whether there is a difference between frail and non-frail patients in HD and PD patients. Methods: 28 PD and 28 HD patients were included in this cross-sectional study. The Edmonton Frailty Scale EFS was used to assess frailty status, including questions on cognition, general health status, addiction, social support, medication, nutrition, depression and sphincter continence, and a physical test assessing standing and walking. Results: The mean age was 51.39.6 years and 24 43 of the individuals were female. There was no difference between HD and PD patients in terms of EFS score. Twelve 43 of HD patients and 10 36 of PD patients were found to be frail p0.784. There was a positive correlation between age and EFS score in both HD and PD patients r0.896, p0.001, r0.661, p0.001, respectively. In HD patients, there was a correlation between the EFS score and HbA1c r0.570, p0.002. In HD patients, frail patients were older, had lower creatinine values and higher HbA1c levels p0.001, p0.008, and p0.006, respectively, while in PD patients, frail patients were older p0.001. Conclusion: There was no difference in frailty between HD and PD patients. It should be noted that frailty is common in nongeriatric dialysis patients. Measuring frailty may help clinicians to identify vulnerable patients and intervene early to mitigate adverse outcomes.

 Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare frailty status in non-geriatric hemodialysis HD and peritoneal dialysis PD patients and to assess whether there is a difference between frail and non-frail patients in HD and PD patients. Methods: 28 PD and 28 HD patients were included in this cross-sectional study. The Edmonton Frailty Scale EFS was used to assess frailty status, including questions on cognition, general health status, addiction, social support, medication, nutrition, depression and sphincter continence, and a physical test assessing standing and walking. Results: The mean age was 51.39.6 years and 24 43 of the individuals were female. There was no difference between HD and PD patients in terms of EFS score. Twelve 43 of HD patients and 10 36 of PD patients were found to be frail p0.784. There was a positive correlation between age and EFS score in both HD and PD patients r0.896, p0.001, r0.661, p0.001, respectively. In HD patients, there was a correlation between the EFS score and HbA1c r0.570, p0.002. In HD patients, frail patients were older, had lower creatinine values and higher HbA1c levels p0.001, p0.008, and p0.006, respectively, while in PD patients, frail patients were older p0.001. Conclusion: There was no difference in frailty between HD and PD patients. It should be noted that frailty is common in nongeriatric dialysis patients. Measuring frailty may help clinicians to identify vulnerable patients and intervene early to mitigate adverse outcomes.

Article Details

Assessment of frailty status in non-geriatric peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients

Authors:

Emre Yaşar | İrem Pembegül

Publisher:

MediHealth Academy Yayıncılık

Main Topics:

Nefroloji

Journal:

Anatolian Current Medical Journal Vol.7 Issue 2, pp.239-245

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343195

pISSN:

2718-0115

Frailty

hemodialysis

peritoneal dialysis

non-geriatric frailty

Issues

Article Details

Assessment of frailty status in non-geriatric peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients

Authors: Emre Yaşar | İrem Pembegül

Publisher: MediHealth Academy Yayıncılık

Main Topics: Nefroloji

Journal: Anatolian Current Medical Journal Vol.7 Issue 2, pp.239-245

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 3/2025

Document Language: English

Document ID (Org No.): 2001343195

pISSN: 2718-0115

Frailty

hemodialysis

peritoneal dialysis

non-geriatric frailty

Issues

Authors:

Emre Yaşar | İrem Pembegül

Publisher:

MediHealth Academy Yayıncılık

Main Topics:

Nefroloji

Journal:

Anatolian Current Medical Journal Vol.7 Issue 2, pp.239-245

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

3/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343195

pISSN:

2718-0115