Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Comparative characteristics of the functional reserve and the degree of dependence of the examined patients according to the data of the “Clinical Frailty Scale” (Rockwood et al_, 2005/2007)_
| CFS scale scores | Group I n=117 | Group by functional status | Group II n=131 | Control group n=82 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–3 | 42 (35.8%) | Strong | 53 (40.5%) | 80 (97.6%) |
| 4 | 67 (57.3%) | Vulnerable | 72 (54.9%) | 2(2.4%) |
| 5–9 | 8 (6.9%) | Frail | 6 (4.6%) |
The results of the correlation analysis between the indicators of the “Cumulative Illness Rating Scale” (Linn B_S_ at_ al_, 1968) and the “Charlson Index” (Charlson, M_ E_ at_ al_, 1987) and the indicators of the “Clinical Frailty Scale” (Rockwood et al_, 2005/2007) in the examined patients_
| Indicates of the CFS | examined patients | Indicators of the CIRS scale: CIRS-CI/CIRS-IS | CCI | |
| Group I, n=117 | 0.584*** | 0.678*** | 0.692*** | |
| Group II, n=131 | 0.601*** | 0.715*** | 0.725*** | |
| Control Group, n=82 | 0.295* | 0.334** | 0.341** | |
Comparative characteristics of the average indicators of the “Cumulative Illness Rating Scale” (Linn B_S_ at_ al_, 1968) and the “The Charlson Index” (Charlson, M_ E_ at_ al_, 1987) in the examined patients_
| Indicators | Group I, n=117 | Group II, n=131 | Control group, n=82 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIRS-CI | 2.5 (1.0–3.5)* | 2.1 (1.2–2.7)*# | 1.0 (0.98–2.01) |
| CIRS-IS | 1.93 (1.48–2.97)* | 1.75 (1.27–2.48)*# | 1.12 (0.5–1.5) |
| CCI | 3.14 (2.0–4.0)* | 2.93 (2.0–3.0)*# | 1.69 (1.0–2.0) |