Dataset Information

Geriatric fracture centre vs usual care after proximal femur fracture in older patients: what are the benefits? Results of a large international prospective multicentre study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of treatment in geriatric fracture centres (GFC) on the incidence of major adverse events (MAEs) in patients with hip fractures compared with usual care centres (UCC). Secondary objectives included hospital-workflow and mobility-related outcomes.

Design

Cohort study recruiting patients between June 2015 and January 2017. Follow-up was 1 year.

Setting

International (six countries, three continents) multicentre study.

Participants

281 patients aged ≥70 with operatively treated proximal femur fractures.

Interventions

Treatment in UCCs (n=139) or GFCs (n=142), that is, interdisciplinary treatment including regular geriatric consultation and daily physiotherapy.

Outcome measures

Primary outcome was occurrence of prespecified MAEs, including delirium. Secondary outcomes included any other adverse events, time to surgery, time in acute ward, 1-year mortality, mobility, and quality of life.

Results

Patients treated in GFCs (n=142) had a mean age of 81.9 (SD, 6.6) years versus 83.9 (SD 6.9) years in patients (n=139) treated in UCCs (p=0.013) and a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.0 (SD, 2.1) versus 1.2 (SD, 1.5) in UCCs (p=0.001). More patients in GFCs (28.2%) experienced an MAE during the first year after surgery compared with UCCs (7.9%) with an OR of 4.56 (95% CI 2.23 to 9.34, p<0.001). Analysing individual MAEs, this was significant for pneumonia (GFC: 9.2%; UCC: 2.9%; OR, 3.40 (95% CI 1.08 to 10.70), p=0.027) and delirium (GFC: 11.3%; UCC: 2.2%, OR, 5.76 (95% CI 1.64 to 20.23), p=0.002).

Conclusions

Contrary to our study hypothesis, the rate of MAEs was higher in GFCs than in UCCs. Delirium was revealed as a main contributor. Most likely, this was based on improved detection rather than a truly elevated incidence, which we interpret as positive effect of geriatric comanagement.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02297581.

SUBMITTER: Blauth M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8112430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Treatment of fractures in the elderly population is a clinical challenge due partly to the presence of comorbidities. In a Geriatric Fracture Centre (GFC), patients are co-managed by a geriatrician in an attempt to improve clinical outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality. Until now the beneficial effect of orthogeriatric co-management has not been definitively proven. The primary objective of this study is to determine the effect of GFC on predefined major adverse events related to a hip fracture compared to usual care centres (UCC). The secondary objectives include assessments in quality of life, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Two hundred and sixty-six elderly patients diagnosedwith hip fracture and planned to be treated with osteosynthesis or endoprosthesis in either a GFC or UCC study site will be recruited, 133 per type of centre. All procedures and management will be done according to the site's standard of care. Study-related visits will be performed at the following time points: preoperative, intraoperative, discharge from the orthopaedic/trauma department, discharge to definite residential status, 12 weeks and 12 months postsurgery. Data collected include demographics, residential status, adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, fall history, costs and resources related to treatment. The risk of major adverse events at 12 months will be calculated for each centre type; patient-reported outcomes will be analysed by mixed effects regression models to estimate differences in mean scores between baseline and follow-ups whereas cost-effectiveness will be assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval for this study was granted from the local Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Board from each of the participating sites prior to patient enrolment. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at different conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02297581; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundHip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in order to establish the role of cementation.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed 51 metastatic patients with proximal femur metastases treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction by megaprostheses, 25 with cementless stems and 26 with cemented ones with different megaprosthetic implants. The primary endpoint was MSTS score, and the secondary endpoint was to state the incidence of surgical and clinical complications in the two groups. An un-paired T test was used to compare anthropometric, anamnestic data, and MSTS. Chi-square test was performed for evaluation of complication in the two group. Multiple linear regression was used to match the functional outcomes and complications' incidence in the population study. Logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of different parameters and their role in the incidence of complications.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 50.1 months (+ 12.5). In thirty case right side was involved. No statistical differences were noticed between Group A and B regard the age, gender, active fracture/impending fracture. Comparing the MSTS results within the two groups at last follow-up, the score cemented group was higher than cementless one (17.9 + 7.8 vs 24.2 + 5.3; statistical significance p = 0.001). Regarding surgical complications a logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of age, cementation and length of resection; cementation confirm and odds ratio of 11 times in the incidence of surgical complications.ConclusionsCementation seems to be more liable to complications onset, while improves functional score in metastatic patients compared to uncemented megaprostheses. More studies have to be conducted in order to create a protocol and establish criteria to use cemented or uncemented stems in a frail population like metastatic patients.

Project description:BackgroundHip fractures are a common and costly health problem, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality, as well as high costs for healthcare systems, especially for the elderly. Implementing surgical preventive strategies has the potential to improve the quality of life and reduce the burden on healthcare resources, particularly in the long term. However, there are currently limited guidelines for standardizing hip fracture prophylaxis practices.MethodsThis study used a cost-effectiveness analysis with a finite-state Markov model and cohort simulation to evaluate the primary and secondary surgical prevention of hip fractures in the elderly. Patients aged 60 to 90 years were simulated in two different models (A and B) to assess prevention at different levels. Model A assumed prophylaxis was performed during the fracture operation on the contralateral side, while Model B included individuals with high fracture risk factors. Costs were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and transition probabilities and health state utilities were derived from available literature. The baseline assumption was a 10% reduction in fracture risk after prophylaxis. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to assess the reliability and variability of the results.ResultsWith a 10% fracture risk reduction, model A costs between $8,850 and $46,940 per quality-adjusted life-year ($/QALY). Additionally, it proved most cost-effective in the age range between 61 and 81 years. The sensitivity analysis established that a reduction of ≥ 2.8% is needed for prophylaxis to be definitely cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness at the secondary prevention level was most sensitive to the cost of the contralateral side's prophylaxis, the patient's age, and fracture treatment cost. For high-risk patients with no fracture history, the cost-effectiveness of a preventive strategy depends on their risk profile. In the baseline analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the primary prevention level varied between $11,000/QALY and $74,000/QALY, which is below the defined willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionDue to the high cost of hip fracture treatment and its increased morbidity, surgical prophylaxis strategies have demonstrated that they can significantly relieve the healthcare system. Various key assumptions facilitated the modeling, allowing for adequate room for uncertainty. Further research is needed to evaluate health-state-associated risks.