Prognostic Value of Frailty in Aortic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Frailty Assessment Tools.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Frailty is increasingly recognized as an important determinant of outcomes after aortic vascular surgery, but assessment methods vary substantially and the optimal tool for risk stratification remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic value of preoperative frailty and compared the predictive performance of different frailty instruments in aortic surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 27, 2026. Eligible studies included patients undergoing open, endovascular, or hybrid aortic procedures involving abdominal, thoracic, thoracoabdominal, arch, and proximal aortic diseases, including aneurysms and dissections, assessed frailty preoperatively, and reported postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty studies comprising 419,459 patients were included. Frailty was associated with higher early mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54-3.14) and late mortality (hazard ratio 2.18; 95% CI 1.64-2.90). Frail patients also had increased risks of major complications (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.22-5.19), acute kidney injury (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.34-2.02), and nonhome discharge (OR 5.50; 95% CI 3.05-9.92). Associations were consistent across surgical approaches and aortic segments. Judgment-based or phenotype-like tools yielded higher effect estimates than deficit-accumulation indices, although differences were not statistically significant; among index-based tools, Modified Frailty Index (mFI)-11 outperformed mFI-5. CONCLUSION: Preoperative frailty strongly predicts mortality, morbidity, and loss of functional independence after open, endovascular, and hybrid aortic surgery across different aortic segments and pathologies, including aneurysmal and dissecting aortic disease. Routine frailty assessment may improve risk stratification and perioperative decision-making.