metricas
covid
Buscar en
Revista Española de Geriatría y Gerontología
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Española de Geriatría y Gerontología Baseline and 1-year follow-up differences between hip-fracture patients admitted...
Información de la revista
Vol. 54. Núm. 4.
Páginas 207-213 (julio - agosto 2019)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
2248
Vol. 54. Núm. 4.
Páginas 207-213 (julio - agosto 2019)
Original
Acceso a texto completo
Baseline and 1-year follow-up differences between hip-fracture patients admitted from nursing homes and the community. A cohort study on 509 consecutive patients (FONDA Cohort)
Diferencias iniciales y a 1 año de seguimiento entre los pacientes con fractura de cadera de residencia de ancianos y de comunidad. Estudio de una cohorte de 509 pacientes (Cohorte FONDA)
Visitas
2248
P.P. Ríos-Germána,
Autor para correspondencia
peggypaola.rios@salud.madrid.org

Corresponding author. Servicio de Geriatría. Hospital Universitario La Paz. Paseo de la Castellana 261, Madrid, España. Código postal: 28046
, R. Menéndez-Colinoa, R. Ramírez Martina, T. Alarcóna,b,c, R. Queipob, A. Otero Puimeb,c, J.I. González-Montalvoa,b,c
a Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, España
b Instituto de Investigación del Hospital Universitario La Paz, IdiPAZ, Madrid, España
c Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, España
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (2)
Tablas (4)
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as median (interquartile range) or number (percentage).
Table 2. Differences in Prognostic Scores, Nutrition and Sarcopenia among Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as mean (± standard deviation) or number (percentage).
Table 3. Characteristics during the Hospitalization of the Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as mean (± standard deviation), median (interquartile range) or number (percentage).
Table 4. Treatments before and during the Hospitalization of the Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as numbers (percentage).
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Abstract
Objective

To determine the clinical and functional differences at hospital admission and at 1 year after a hip fracture (HF) in nursing homes (NH) and community-dwelling (CD) patients.

Methods

All patients with HF admitted to the orthogeriatric unit at a university hospital between January 2013 and February 2014 were prospectively included. Clinical and functional variables, and mortality were recorded during the hospital admission. The patients were contacted by telephone at 1 year to determine their vital condition and functional status.

Results

A total of 509 patients were included, 116 (22.8%) of whom came from NH. Compared with the CD patients, the NH patients had higher surgical risk (ASA ≥3: 83.6% vs. 66.4%, P<.001), poorer theoretical vital prognosis (Nottingham Profile ≥5: 98.3% vs. 56.6%, P<.001), higher rate of previous functional status (median Barthel index: 55 [IQR, 36-80] vs. 90 [IQR, 75-100], P<.001), poorer mental status (Pfeiffer's SPMSQ>2: 74.1% vs. 40.2%, P<.001), and a higher rate of sarcopenia (24.3% vs. 15.2%, P<.05). There were no differences in in-hospital or at 1-year mortality. At 1 year, NH patients recovered their previous walking capacity at a lower rate (38.5% vs. 56.2%, P<.001).

Conclusions

Among the patients with HF treated in an orthogeriatric unit, NH patients had higher, surgical risk, functional and mental impairment, and a higher rate of sarcopenia than CD patients. At 1 year of follow-up, NH patients did not have higher mortality, but they recovered their previous capacity for walking less frequently.

Keywords:
Hip fracture
Nursing homes
Community
Functional recovery
Mortality
Resumen
Objetivo

Determinar las diferencias clínicas y funcionales, basales y al año de la fractura, en los pacientes hospitalizados por fractura de cadera (FC) que provienen de residencia de ancianos (RA) y de la comunidad.

Métodos

Se incluyeron de forma prospectiva todos los pacientes ingresados con el diagnóstico de FC en la unidad de ortogeriatría de un hospital universitario entre enero de 2013 y febrero de 2014. Se recogieron variables clínicas, funcionales, cognitivas y la evolución durante la hospitalización. Se contactó telefónicamente al año para conocer su estado vital y funcional.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 509 pacientes, de los que 116 (22,8%) provenían de RA. Comparados con las personas que provenían de comunidad, éstos tenían un mayor riesgo quirúrgico (ASA≥3: 83,6% vs. 66,4%, p<0,001), peor pronóstico vital teórico (Perfil de Nottingham≥5: 98,3% vs. 56,6%, p<0,001), peor estado funcional basal (Índice Barthel medio: 55 [RIC, 36-80] vs. 90 [RIC, 75-100], p<0,001), peor estado mental (Test de Pfeiffer>2: 74,1% vs. 40,2%, p<0,001) y tasas más altas de sarcopenia (24,3% vs. 15,2%, p<0,05). No hubo diferencias en la mortalidad durante la hospitalización ni al año. Al año los pacientes de RA recuperaron su capacidad de ambulación previa con menos frecuencia (38,5% vs. 56,2%, p<0,001).

Conclusiones

Los pacientes ingresados por FC provenientes de RA presentan mayor riesgo quirúrgico, mayor deterioro funcional y mental y mayor tasa de sarcopenia que los pacientes de la comunidad. No presentan mayor mortalidad durante el ingreso ni al año de la FC, pero recuperan su capacidad de deambulación previa con menos frecuencia.

Palabras clave:
Fractura de cadera
Residencia de ancianos
Comunidad
Recuperación funcional
Mortalidad
Texto completo
Background

Hip fractures (HF) are a prevalent condition and cause high mortality and functional disability.1 The number rate of HFs was estimated at 620,000 cases in 2010 in the European Union and at more than 210,000 cases per year in the USA between 2008 and 2011.2Between 17% and 40% of all patients with HF come from nursing homes (NH).1,3,4 Studies have suggested that NH patients are older, have poorer functional status, poorer ambulation capacity, higher cognitive impairment, a higher comorbidity rate, higher consumption of drugs and a poorer nutritional status than community-dwelling (CD) patients.5–12 After a HF, NH patients tend to have higher mortality and functional impairment rates than CD patients.8,10,12–14

Many studies that analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of patients with HF did not include individuals from NHs. Those studies that did include them often had small series 5,8,13,15or made no comparisons with those from the community.4,6,13 A number of studies have not included functional 3,9,15–18clinical or analytical variables 7,11,15,17or did not describe the treatment used during the hospitalization.6,11,17 Lastly, most of the series had a brief or nonexistent follow-up.3,5,7,9

It would be interesting to know whether these previously mentioned partial differences could be confirmed in a broad population-based study. Such a study should include all patients with HF (from NHs and CD), include a comprehensive geriatric assessment with several variables that could be involved in these patients (clinical, functional, nutritional, somatic and analytical endpoints) and perform a long-term follow-up.

The aim of this study was to report the baseline clinical and functional characteristics of patients with HF who came from NHs and compare them with those of CD patients in a representative population cohort. The secondary objectives were to determine whether there were differences in these patients’ clinical outcome during hospitalization and at 1 year after the hospitalization.

Materials and MethodsStudy design

A descriptive observational cohort study.

Participants and setting

The study included all patients aged 65 years and older consecutively hospitalized in a public 1300-bed university hospital with a diagnosis of fragility HF between January 25, 2013 and February 26, 2014. This hospital has a catchment area of 520,000 inhabitants, with 4755 residents living in 41 nursing homes. Patients with HF are admitted from the emergency department to the Orthogeriatric Unit, whose activities have been described in previous papers.19–21 Patients hospitalized in this unit undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment and a study of their fall on admission and are jointly treated during hospitalization by an orthogeriatrician, an orthopedic surgeon and an orthogeriatric nurse. Patients are helped out of bed on the first day after surgery and are asked to bear their own weight on the second day. The physiotherapist treats the patients in the same ward where they are hospitalized. The orthogeriatric team plans the discharge and assesses the need for referral to a geriatric rehabilitation unit after discharge. During the hospital stay, patients receive routine orthogeriatric care and undergo a standardized treatment protocol (known as FONDA for Function, Osteoporosis, Nutrition, Pain [dolor=spanish for pain] and Anemia).22 The aim of this protocol is to optimize physical function (active and passive exercises in bed and in a chair since the time of admission and standing after surgery), bone health (early normalization of vitamin D plasma levels), nutrition (oral nutritional supplements in cases of hypoproteinemia or body mass index <24kg/m2), pain (analgesia scheduled every 4h) and anemia (administration of intravenous iron if iron deficiency or risk of iron deficiency [ferritin<20mg/mL or ferritin<200mg/mL+transferrin saturation<20%] are detected and transfusion of packed red blood cells if hemoglobin levels are <9g/dL or <10g/dL in patients with disease of a vital organ).

Baseline and admission assessment

All patients were assessed during the first 72?h after admission and always before surgery. A clinical interview was conducted to collect data on the following baseline variables: clinical (past medical history and medications), functional (previous Functional Ambulation Category [FAC] scale (0=Nonfunctional ambulator, 1=Ambulator, dependent on physical assistance – level I, 2=Ambulator, dependent on physical assistance – level II, 3=Ambulator, dependent on supervision, 4=Ambulator, independent level surface only, 5=Ambulator, independent)) 23and Barthel index [BI],24 cognitive (Red Cross Mental Scale [CRM] 25and Pfeiffer's Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire [SPMSQ],26 blood test (hemogram and biochemistry, total protein, albumin and vitamin?D) and previous medications.

We applied the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) anesthetic risk scale classification,27 the Charlson comorbidity index (abbreviated version) 28and the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS).29,30 Within the NHFS variable, we used the Pfeiffer test instead of the Mini Mental Test Score, given that the former is the 10-item test most often applied in Spanish hospitals.31 Body mass index (BMI), muscle mass, grip strength and sarcopenia were also assessed at this time, as described in previous papers.32 The cut-off points of the Italian inCHIANTI (Invecchiare in Chianti, aging in the Chianti area) study were applied, which were 20?kg for women and 30?kg for men.33,34 A patient was considered to have sarcopenia if they met the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria for low muscle mass and low muscle strength.33

Assessment at discharge

During the last 24h before discharge, the patient's pain when mobilizing the affected limb was assessed using a verbal descriptive scale from 0 to 5 (0 - no pain, 5 - maximum pain).35 We recorded the variables for medical treatment, surgery, rehabilitation and hospital length of stay. We also recorded the variables for function (FAC scale and BI), post-discharge destination and hospital mortality.

Assessment at 1 year

Telephone contact was made at 12 months after the fracture, during which we recorded the variables of the patient's vital status, functional status (FAC) and hospital readmissions. To determine the change in the patient's functional status the variable “change in FAC” was created following the formula “baseline FAC minus “at one year” FAC”.12 Change in functional status was designated as “no change” if the result was zero, “moderate change” if the difference was 1 point and “major change” if the difference was>1 point.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the La Paz University Hospital (Reference HULP-PI-1334). Informed consent was obtained from all the patients or relatives before the patients’ inclusion in the study.

Statistical analysis

The results for the quantitative variables are described using the mean and standard deviation (SD) for the variables with a normal distribution and with the median and interquartile range for those without a normal distribution. The qualitative variables are described using frequencies. We established 2 groups according to place of residence: NH and CD. The statistical association of each variable with place of residence was calculated using the chi-squared test for the qualitative variables and with Student's t-test for the quantitative variables with a normal distribution and the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normal distribution. Normality was verified by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The statistical package used for the analysis was SPSS, version 22 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

ResultsPatient Characteristics

During the study period, 535 patients were admitted, 509 of whom (95%) were eligible for inclusion. One hundred and sixteen (22.8%) of the patients came from NHs. The NH patients were older and had poorer previous functional and cognitive status (Table 1). There were no differences in the disease rates, except for cancer, which was more common among the NH patients. The NH patients had greater comorbidity (Charlson index), higher surgical risk (ASA scale), poorer vital prognoses (Nottingham Score), poorer nutritional status and a higher rate of sarcopenia (Table 2).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of the Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as median (interquartile range) or number (percentage).

  Nursing homen=193  Community dwellingn=393 
Number  116 (22.8)  393 (77.2)   
Age  88.5 (85-92)  85 (80-90)  <0.001 
Female sex  92 (79.3)  311 (79.1)  0.967 
Type of Fracture      0.705 
Femoral neck  47 (40.5)  167 (42.5)   
Intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric  69 (59.5)  226 (57.5)   
Functional assessment
Previous median Barthel index  55 (36-80)  90 (75-100)  <0.001 
Previous Functional Ambulatory Category      <0.001 
11 (9.5)  7 (1.8)   
1 to 3  34 (29.3)  54 (13.7)   
4 to 5  71 (61.2)  332 (84.5)   
Technical aids  64 (68.1)  174 (48.6)  0.001 
Previous Red Cross Mental Scale>1  60 (51.7)  105 (26.7)  <0.001 
Diseases
Heart disease  46 (39.7)  149 (37.9)  0.735 
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease  11 (9.5)  35 (8.9)  0.849 
Stroke  19 (16.4)  54 (13.7)  0.476 
Diabetes  27 (23.3)  92 (23.4)  0.976 
Renal failure  31 (26.7)  109 (27.7)  0.830 
Cancer  23 (19.8)  42 (10.7)  0.001 
Antiplatelet or anticoagulation  58 (50.0)  182 (46.3)  0.484 
Table 2.

Differences in Prognostic Scores, Nutrition and Sarcopenia among Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as mean (± standard deviation) or number (percentage).

  Nursing homen=193  Community dwellingn=393 
Prognostic scores
American Society of Anesthesiologists ≥3  97 (83.6)  261 (66.4)  <0.001 
Charlson comorbidity index (≥3)  52 (44.8)  133 (33.8)  0.031 
Nottingham score (≥5)  114 (98.3)  222 (56.6)  <0.001 
Nutrition and Sarcopenia
Mean body mass index  24.28 (4.0)  25.44 (4.3)  0.012 
Body mass index <22, kg/m2  31 (29.2)  68 (17.6)  0.008 
Mean muscle mass index  8.85 (2.5)  8.77 (2.3)  0.787 
Low muscle mass index  26 (25.0)  63 (16.7)  0.052 
Low grip strength  86 (100)  322 (89.2)  0.001 
Sarcopeniaa  25 (24.3)  57 (15.2)  0.030 
a

From the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People criteria for low muscle mass and low muscle strength33. The gait speed criterion could not be applied because these patients had not yet undergone surgery for the fracture.

During hospitalization, the NH patients had a poorer functional, cognitive and nutritional status (Table 3). There were no differences in the blood test variables, except for a higher rate of severe vitamin D deficiency (<11 ng/mL) in the NH patients. Pain intensity at discharge was higher in the NH patients. There were no differences in hospital mortality between the 2 groups.

Table 3.

Characteristics during the Hospitalization of the Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as mean (± standard deviation), median (interquartile range) or number (percentage).

  Nursing homen=193  Community dwellingn=393 
Functional assessment
Median Barthel index at admission  0 (0-10)  10 (5-25)  <0.001 
Red Cross Mental Scale>1 at admission  75 (64.7)  129 (32.8)  <0.001 
Pfeiffer>2 at admission  86 (74.1)  158 (40.2)  <0.001 
Median Barthel index at discharge  20 (10-30)  37.50 (25-55)  <0.001 
Functional Ambulatory Category at discharge      <0.001 
38 (33.9)  49 (13.0)  <0.0001 
1 to 3  74 (66.1)  311 (82.7)   
4 to 5  0 (0)  16 (4.3)   
Laboratory
Mean hemoglobin at admission, g/dL  12.4 (1.5)  12.6 (1.9)  0.345 
Anemia  43 (37.1)  139 (35.4)  0.737 
Mean number of transfusions  1.55 (1.7)  1.72 (2.1)  0.392 
Red blood cell transfusion  71 (61.2)  222 (56.5)  0.366 
Mean total proteins at admission, mg/dL  6.8 (0.9)  6.8 (0.8)  0.801 
Proteins <7 mg/dL at admission  59 (50.9)  202 (51.4)  0.919 
Proteins <7 mg/dL at discharge  110 (98.2)  363 (96.8)  0.432 
Mean albumin at admission, mg/dL  3.0 (0.4)  3.1 (0.4)  0.48 
Albumin <3.5 mg/dL at admission  96 (85.0)  309 (79.2)  0.176 
Vitamin D <21, ng/mL  93 (82.3)  304 (78.4)  0.362 
Vitamin D <11, ng/mL  53 (46.9)  95 (24.5)  0.000 
Pain at movement       
None or mild  36 (35.3)  192 (54.4)  <0.001 
Moderate  30 (29.4)  131 (37.1)   
Severe  36 (35.3)  30 (8.5)   
In-hospital outcome
Operated on  108 (93.1)  383 (97.5)  0.026 
Mean hospital stay, days  9.2 (4.0)  10.4 (5.2)  0.013 
Mortality during hospitalization  4 (3.4)  17 (4.3)  0.796 
Destination after discharge
Home  0 (0)  126 (32.1)  <0.001 
Nursing home  108 (93.1)  24 (6.1)   
Functional recovery unit  3 (2.6)  214 (54.5)   
Long-term care unit  1 (0.9)  9 (2.3)   
Unknown  0 (0)  3 (0.8)   

At discharge, almost all NH patients returned to their NHs, while more than half of the CD patients were transferred to functional recovery units.

Treatments Employed

Both patient groups underwent the same treatments in terms of the implementation of the standardized in-hospital management protocol and the same frequency of in-hospital rehabilitation treatment (Table 4). However, the NH patients underwent on average one fewer physical therapy session for walking and less frequently managed to perform bed and chair exercises from the time of admission, as well as standing exercises after surgery.

Table 4.

Treatments before and during the Hospitalization of the Hip Fracture Patients from Nursing Homes and Community Dwelling. Results expressed as numbers (percentage).

Treatment  Nursing homen=193  Community dwellingn=393 
Oral protein supplements
Previous  14 (12.1)  9 (2.3)  <0.001 
During hospitalization  112 (96.6)  371 (94.4)  0.355 
At discharge  84 (75.0)  278 (73.9)  0.821 
Vitamin D
Previous  5 (4.3)  23 (5.9)  0.522 
During hospitalization (standard dose)  8 (6.9)  32 (8.1)  0.661 
During hospitalization (mega-dose)  88 (75.9)  284 (72.3)  0.443 
Oral at discharge  105 (93.8)  342 (91.0)  0.350 
Calcium+Vitamin D
Previous  12 (10.3)  42 (10.7)  0.916 
During hospitalization  5 (4.3)  21 (5.3)  0.657 
At discharge  82 (73.2)  290 (77.1)  0.393 
Iron
Oral previous  17 (14.7)  18 (4.6)  <0.001 
Oral during the hospitalization  1 (0.9)  2 (0.5)  0.662 
Intravenous during the hospitalization  45 (38.8)  170 (43.3)  0.392 
Oral at discharge  13 (11.6)  20 (5.3)  0.020 
Minor analgesics
Previous  45 (38.8)  137 (34.9)  0.437 
During hospitalization  111 (95.7)  382 (97.2)  0.412 
At discharge  109 (97.3)  371 (98.7)  0.392 
Minor opioids
Previous  10 (8.6)  30 (7.6)  0.728 
During hospitalization  22 (19.0)  61 (15.5)  0.378 
At discharge  12 (10.7)  33 (8.8)  0.534 
Major opioids
Previous  5 (4.3)  11 (2.8)  0.412 
During hospitalization  5 (4.3)  12 (3.1)  0.508 
At discharge  5 (4.5)  11 (2.9)  0.422 
In-hospital rehabilitation  105 (90.5)  368 (93.6)  0.249 
Mean rehabilitation length, days  3.2  4.2  0.003 
Bed exercises during hospitalization  57 (49.1)  337 (85.8)  <0.001 
Chair exercises during hospitalization  57 (49.1)  335 (85.2)  <0.001 
Bed exercises at discharge  43 (38.4)  294 (78.2)  <0.001 
Chair exercises at discharge  43 (38.4)  302 (80.3)  <0.001 
Standing exercises at discharge  37 (33.0)  257 (68.4)  <0.001 
Mortality

During the 12-month follow-up, 10 CD patients moved outside the area and could not be located. Of the remaining patients in the NH and CD groups, 32 (27.6%) and 86 (21.9%) died, respectively (p=0.201). During the first year, 24 (27.6%) and 71 (23.6%) of the NH and CD patients were readmitted, respectively (p=0.479).

Functional Outcome

The differences in previous ambulation level and at 12 months of the HF for the two groups are shown in Figure 1. The differences according to place of residence were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Figure 1.

Differences in Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) before and 12 months after a hip fracture in patients from nursing homes (NH) and community dwelling (CD). Data expressed in percentages (p<0.001).

(0.24MB).

Lastly, Figure 2 shows the recovery rate and, if applicable, the magnitude of the change in the ambulation capacity at 1 year according to the FAC scale for the two patient groups. Some 38.5% of the NH patients and 56% of the CD patients recovered their previous level of ambulation (p<0.001).

Figure 2.

Change in Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) from baseline to 1 year after a hip fracture in nursing homes and community dwelling patients. No change, moderate change (baseline FAC minus FAC at 1 year equal to 1) or major change (baseline FAC minus FAC at 1 year greater than 1) (p<0.001).

(0.18MB).
Discussion

In this study, we compared the differences at baseline and during hospitalization and the results at 1 year for NH patients and CD patients with HFs. The NH patients had a poorer clinical, functional, cognitive and nutritional status, a higher rate of sarcopenia and higher pain intensity. The NH patients did not have higher hospital mortality or at 1 year of follow-up, but its functional decline in terms of ambulatory capacity was greater.

Patient Characteristics

The higher rate and intensity of functional and walking impairment 5,6,8,10,12,13as well as the higher rate of cognitive impairment 5,6,8,13and higher comorbidity 5,7–9,13in NH patients who experience a HF have been mentioned in previous studies. Our study also revealed that these patients have higher severity degree of systemic disease, as assessed through higher surgical risk on the ASA scale and a poorer theoretical vital prognosis as measured with the NHFS. The latter scale has been shown to predict mortality at 30 days 29,36and at 12 months 30after a HF This result shows that NH patients have higher clinical complexity when experiencing the HF process.

Malnutrition and low muscle mass and strength are known to be more common among the institutionalized population than among CD patients.8,11 The evaluation of sarcopenia in HF patients has a number of difficulties due to the problems of mobility and the method for assessing muscle mass. This, coupled with the fact that the NH population is rarely described in the literature, makes it difficult to find studies similar to ours.19,37

The rate of moderate to severe pain at discharge was higher in the NH patients despite being treated similarly to the CD patients. We do not know the cause for this finding, but it might be related to the observation by Killington et al. that, after hospitalization for HF, patients return to their NH complaining of poorly controlled pain,38 or it could be related to the finding by Feldt et al. that, after a HF, the pain is more intense in patients with cognitive impairment and in more elderly patients.39

Treatments Employed

All cases were monitored daily by the geriatrician, the orthopedic surgeon and the orthogeriatric nurse. The treatments applied to the two study groups were similar, including surgery, unlike other series that found lower rates of surgery in NH patients.5,8,11,40

Mortality

There were no differences in hospital or at 1-year mortality between the two study groups, despite the presence of increased severity markers in the NH patients. A number of authors have found that living in a NH can be a risk factor for increased mortality during the hospital phase 11and at 1 year.13–15,17 Although we cannot demonstrate it due to the lack of a control group, we believe that having applied a specific clinical management protocol (intensive and identical for the two groups) contributed to the lack of differences in mortality between both groups. The fact that the mortality in relation to the mean age of the sample observed in this series was lower than that observed in other studies 14,40and that co-managed orthogeriatric care offers better survival results during the hospital phase 21leads us to the conclusion that the treatment employed in this study had a beneficial effect in this regard.

Functional Outcome

The degree of impairment in the ambulation capacity was greater in the NH patients, as has been reported by other authors.10,12 This finding could be due to the patients having a poorer condition at admission or having undergone less rehabilitation treatment. During hospitalization, there were no differences in the percentage of patients who underwent in-hospital physical therapy; however, the NH patients underwent one fewer session and were less often able to perform the bed, chair and standing exercises that were indicated for them, perhaps due to their greater functional or cognitive impairment. Additionally, many of the CD patients (55%) were referred to rehabilitation units, unlike the NH patients who generally had this treatment at their own centers. The hospital where the study was conducted refers patients to two rehabilitation units headed by geriatricians, while NH patients are dispersed to 41 centers where the treatments could be highly variable. This situation, which has been mentioned by Ireland et al 40might need to be reconsidered to ensure the same quality of rehabilitation care regardless of the patients’ place of residence.

Our study's strengths are the large number of patients included and the fact that they are a representative sample of the population, given that our hospital is the only reference hospital in the area for this condition. The HFs treated at the hospital probably included all cases that occurred in the area over the year. Another strength was that no exclusion criteria were applied, except for patient refusal to be included. The orthogeriatric unit where the patients were admitted had, at the time of the study, 7 years of experience and had treated more than 3000 patients, using a specialized surgical and geriatric treatment protocol adapted to current scientific evidence. The number and type of variables included in the study is superior, as far as we know, to those of studies published to date. Lastly, we can also consider the 1-year follow-up of the patients after the HF as a strength.

The study limitations include not having a control group to show the efficacy of the applied protocol in a trial and, as has been mentioned, that once the acute phase had passed the patients did not get the same access to rehabilitation.

In conclusion, this study shows that the clinical differences between NH patients and CD patients are not as relevant to the patients’ vital status if the two groups undergo an intensive treatment in a specialized orthogeriatric unit. However, the functional status of NH patients, which is already poorer than that of CD patients at baseline, worsens disproportionately in the long term. Rehabilitation measures might therefore need to be intensified for these patients. Further research is needed to understand this vulnerable population in order to make better strategies to minimize their functional decline after a hip fracture.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

This work was supported in part by a Grant to Emerging Research Groups 2012 from the Research Institute of La Paz University Hospital (IdiPAZ); by a grant from the Ayudas de Investigación en Salud, 2008-2011 Plan Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Instituto de Salud Carlos III – Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa as the funding entity, the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Envejecimiento y Fragilidad (RETICEF RD12/0043/0019) co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER); and by a grant from Nestlé Health Science to the Fundación de Investigación of La Paz University Hospital. The sponsors were not involved in any aspect of the study or in preparing the manuscript.

References
[1]
J.I. González Montalvo, T. Alarcón Alarcón, B. Pallardo Rodil, P. Gotor Pérez, T. Pareja Sierra.
[Acute orthogeriatric care (II) Clinical aspects].
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol., 43 (2008), pp. 316-329
[2]
E. Hernlund, A. Svedbom, M. Ivergård, J. Compston, C. Cooper, J. Stenmark, et al.
Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden.
Arch Osteoporosis., 8 (2013), pp. 136
[3]
J. Brennan nee Saunders, A. Johansen, J. Butler, M. Stone, P. Richmond, S. Jones, et al.
Place of residence and risk of fracture in older people: A population-based study of over 65-year-olds in Cardiff.
Osteoporos Int., 14 (2003), pp. 515-519
[4]
K. Rapp, C. Becker, S.E. Lamb, A. Icks, J. Klenk.
Hip Fractures in Institutionalized Elderly People: Incidence Rates and Excess Mortality.
J Bone Miner Res., 23 (2008), pp. 1825-1831
[5]
M. Crotty, M. Miller, C. Whitehead, J. Krishnan, T. Hearn.
Hip fracture treatments--what happens to patients from residential care?.
J Qual Clin Pract., 20 (2000), pp. 167-170
[6]
M.D. Neuman, J.H. Silber, J.S. Magaziner, M.A. Passarella, S. Mehta, R.M. Werner.
Survival and functional outcomes after hip fracture among nursing home residents.
JAMA Intern Med., 174 (2014), pp. 1273-1280
[7]
F. Formiga, A. Lopez-Soto, E. Duaso, D. Ruiz, D. Chivite, J.M. Perez-Castejon, et al.
Differences in the characteristics of elderly patients suffering from hip fracture due to falls according to place of residence.
J Am Med Dir Assoc., 8 (2007), pp. 533-537
[8]
H.M. Cho, K. Lee, W. Min, Y.S. Choi, H.S. Lee, H.J. Mun, et al.
Survival and Functional Outcomes after Hip Fracture among Nursing Home Residents.
J Korean Med Sci., 31 (2016), pp. 89-97
[9]
M. Finsterwald, E. Sidelnikov, E.J. Orav, B. Dawson-Hughes, R. Theiler, A. Egli, et al.
Gender-specific hip fracture risk in community-dwelling and institutionalized seniors age 65 years and older.
Osteoporos Int., 25 (2014), pp. 167-176
[10]
L. Beaupre, a, J.G. Cinats, C.A. Jones, A.V. Scharfenberger, C. William, D. Johnston, A. Senthilselvan, et al.
Does functional recovery in elderly hip fracture patients differ between patients admitted from long-term care and the community?.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci., 62 (2007), pp. 1127-1133
[11]
P.A.D. Van Dijk, A.G.J. Bot, V. Neuhaus, M.E. Menendez, M.S. Vrahas, D. Ring.
Admission From Nursing Home Residence Increases Acute Mortality After Hip Fractures.
Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil., 6 (2015), pp. 123-129
[12]
T.S. Dharmarajan, H. Tankala, B. Patel, B. Patel, M. Sipalay, E.P. Norkus.
Outcome in ambulatory status immediately following hip fracture surgery in the acute setting: a comparison of nursing home residents and community older adults.
J Am Med Dir Assoc., 2 (2001), pp. 115-119
[13]
L.A. Beaupre, C.A. Jones, D.W.C. Johnston, D.M. Wilson, S.R. Majumdar.
Recovery of function following a hip fracture in geriatric ambulatory persons living in nursing homes: Prospective cohort study.
J Am Geriatr Soc., 60 (2012), pp. 1268-1273
[14]
F.J. Tarazona-Santabalbina, A. Belenguer-Varea, E. Rovira-Daudi, E. Salcedo-Mahiques, D. Cuesta-Peredó, J.R. Doménech-Pascual, et al.
Early interdisciplinary hospital intervention for elderly patients with hip fractures: functional outcome and mortality.
Clinics (Sao Paulo)., 67 (2012), pp. 547-556
[15]
J. Alegre-López, J. Cordero-Guevara, J.L. Alonso-Valdivielso, J. Fernández-Melón.
Factors associated with mortality and functional disability after hip fracture: An inception cohort study.
Osteoporos Int., 16 (2005), pp. 729-736
[16]
E.L. Hannan, J. Magaziner, J.J. Wang, E.A. Eastwood, S.B. Silberzweig, M. Gilbert, et al.
Mortality and Locomotion 6 Months After Hospitalization for Hip Fracture.
JAMA., 285 (2001), pp. 2736-2742
[17]
I.A. Harris, S. Yong, L. McEvoy, L. Thorn.
A prospective study of the effect of nursing home residency on mortality following hip fracture.
ANZ J Surg., 80 (2010), pp. 447-450
[18]
R. Norton, A.J. Campbell, I.R. Reid, M. Butler, R. Currie, E. Robinson, et al.
Residential status and risk of hip fracture.
Age Ageing., 28 (1999), pp. 135-139
[19]
J.I. González-Montalvo, T. Alarcón, P. Gotor, R. Queipo, R. Velasco, R. Hoyos, et al.
Prevalence of sarcopenia in acute hip fracture patients and its influence on short-term clinical outcome.
Geriatr Gerontol Int., 16 (2016), pp. 1021-1027
[20]
J.I. Gonzalez-Montalvo, J.L. Mauleon, E. Gil-Garay, P. Gotor, A. Martin-Vega.
The orthogeriatric unit for acute patients: A new model of care that improves efficiency in the management of patients with hip fracture.
HIP Int., 20 (2010), pp. 229-235
[21]
J.I. González Montalvo, P. Gotor Pérez, A. Martín Vega, T. Alarcón Alarcón, J.L. Mauleón Álvarez de Linera, E. Gil Garay, et al.
[The acute orthogeriatric unit Assessment of its effect on the clinical course of patients with hip fractures and an estimate of its financial impact].
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol., 46 (2011), pp. 193-199
[22]
J.I. Gonzalez-Montalvo, T. Alarcón Alarcón, P. Gotor Pérez, I. Martín Maestre.
¿Es posible mejorar la atención al paciente con fractura de cadera? Aportaciones del Programa FONDA. En: 3o Actualización en Ortogeriatría.
Ávila: Sociedad Castellanoleonesa-Cántabro-Riojana de Traumatología y Ortopedia;, (2016), pp. 103-119
[23]
M. Holden, K. Gill, M. Magliozzi, J. Nathan, L. Piehl-Baker.
Clinical Gait Assessment in the Neurologically Impaired.
Phys Ther., 64 (1984), pp. 35-40
[24]
J. Cabañero-Martínez, J. Cabrero-García, M. Richart-Martínez, C. Luz Muñoz-Mendoza.
[Structured review of activities of daily living measures in older people].
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol., 43 (2008), pp. 271-283
[25]
J.I. Gonzalez-Montalvo, L. Rodríguez, I. Ruipérez.
[Validation of the Pfeiffer questionnaire and the Mental Disability Scale of the Red Cross in the detection of mental deterioration in outpatients of a Geriatrics Service].
Rev Esp Geriatr y Gerontol., 27 (1992), pp. 129-133
[26]
J. Martínez de la Iglesia, R. Dueñas Herrero, M.C. Onís Vilches, C. Aguado Taberné, C. Albert Colomer, R. Luque Luque.
[Spanish language adaptation and validation of the Pfeiffer's questionnaire (SPMSQ) to detect cognitive deterioration in people over 65 years of age].
Med Clin (Barc)., 117 (2001), pp. 129-134
[27]
W.D. Owens, J.A. Felts, E.L. Spitznagel.
ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings.
Anesthesiology., 49 (1978), pp. 239-243
[28]
L.F. Berkman, L. Leo-Summers, R.I. Horwitz.
Emotional support and survival after myocardial infarction. A prospective, population-based study of the elderly.
Ann Intern Med., 117 (1992), pp. 1003-1009
[29]
M.J. Maxwell, C.G. Moran, I.K. Moppett.
Development and validation of a preoperative scoring system to predict 30 day mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
Br J Anaesth., 101 (2008), pp. 511-517
[30]
M.D. Wiles, C.G. Moran, O. Sahota, I.K. Moppett.
Nottingham Hip Fracture Score as a predictor of one year mortality in patients undergoing surgical repair of fractured neck of femur.
Br J Anaesth., 106 (2011), pp. 501-504
[31]
T. Flores Ruano, A.J. Cruz Jentoft, J.I. González Montalvo, A. López Soto, P. Abizanda Soler.
[Geriatric assessment tools in Spanish Geriatric Departments].
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol., 49 (2014), pp. 235-242
[32]
F. Masanes, A. Culla, M. Navarro-Gonzalez, M. Navarro-Lopez, E. Sacanella, B. Torres, et al.
Prevalence of sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling elderly in an Urban area of Barcelona (Spain).
J Nutr Heal Aging., 16 (2012), pp. 184-187
[33]
A.J. Cruz-Jentoft, F. Landi, S.M. Schneider, C. Zúñiga, H. Arai, Y. Boirie, et al.
Prevalence of and interventions for sarcopenia in ageing adults: A systematic review Report of the International Sarcopenia Initiative (EWGSOP and IWGS).
Age Ageing., 43 (2014), pp. 48-759
[34]
F. Lauretani, C.R. Russo, S. Bandinelli, B. Bartali, C. Cavazzini, A. Di Iorio, et al.
Age-associated changes in skeletal muscles and their effect on mobility: an operational diagnosis of sarcopenia.
J Appl Physiol., 95 (2003), pp. 1851-1860
[35]
R.S. Morrison, S. Flanagan, D. Fischberg, A. Cintron, A.L. Siu.
A novel interdisciplinary analgesic program reduces pain and improves function in older adults after orthopedic surgery.
J Am Geriatr Soc., 57 (2009), pp. 1-10
[36]
J. Karres, N.A. Heesakkers, J.M. Ultee, B.C. Vrouenraets.
Predicting 30-day mortality following hip fracture surgery: Evaluation of six risk prediction models.
Injury., 46 (2015), pp. 371-377
[37]
F. Landi, R. Liperoti, D. Fusco, S. Mastropaolo, D. Quattrociocchi, A. Proia, et al.
Prevalence and risk factors of sarcopenia among nursing home older residents.
Journals Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci., 67A (2012), pp. 48-55
[38]
M. Killington, R. Walker, M. Crotty.
The chaotic journey: Recovering from hip fracture in a nursing home.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr., 67 (2016), pp. 106-112
[39]
K. Feldt, M. Ryden, S. Miles.
Treatment of pain in cognitively impaired compared with cognitively intact older patients with hip fracture.
JAGS., 46 (1998), pp. 1079-1085
[40]
A.W. Ireland, P.J. Kelly, R.G. Cumming.
Total hospital stay for hip fracture: measuring the variations due to pre-fracture residence, rehabilitation, complications and comorbidities.
BMC Health Serv Res., 15 (2015), pp. 17
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos