Prognostic Value of Frailty Index and Handgrip Strength in Predicting 90-day Outcomes in Elderly Patients Admitted under Internal Medicine: A Prospective Cohort Study
Background: Elderly patients admitted under Internal Medicine are at increased risk of short-term adverse outcomes. Frailty index and handgrip strength are simple bedside measures reflecting physiological reserve, but their combined prognostic value in routine clinical settings remains uncertain.
Aim: To evaluate the prognostic value of frailty index and handgrip strength in predicting 90-day outcomes in elderly patients admitted under Internal Medicine.
Methods: This prospective cohort study included 60 patients aged ≥60 years admitted to a tertiary care hospital in Maharashtra, India. Frailty index (based on cumulative deficit model) and handgrip strength were assessed within 48 hours of admission. Patients were followed for 90 days to assess mortality, readmission, and functional decline. A composite adverse outcome was defined as the occurrence of any of these events. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors.
Results: The mean age was 69.9 ± 7.5 years, and 55.0% were male. Frailty (frailty index ≥0.25) was present in 70.0% of patients, and low handgrip strength in 46.7%. At 90 days, mortality was 20.0%, readmission 46.7%, functional decline 30.0%, and composite adverse outcome 73.3%. Although adverse outcomes were more frequent among frail patients, the association was not statistically significant (p = 0.529). Similarly, outcomes were comparable between low and normal handgrip groups (p = 0.778). In multivariable analysis, neither frailty index (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.73–2.68, p = 0.316) nor handgrip strength (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92–1.16, p = 0.632) independently predicted adverse outcomes.
Conclusion: Frailty and reduced handgrip strength were common among elderly medical inpatients and were associated with a high burden of adverse 90-day outcomes. Although not independent predictors in this cohort, both measures remain clinically useful indicators of vulnerability. Larger studies are needed to establish their independent prognostic significance.