Do anticoagulants affect outcomes of hip fracture surgery? A cross-sectional analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with a hip fracture is affected by the use of oral anticoagulants. A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken to investigate health outcome differences in those anticoagulated compared to those not anticoagulated. METHODS: Patients aged 50 years and over presenting to a large university hospital with hip fractures were identified from the service registry. Patient characteristics and health outcomes between those not anticoagulated were compared with those anticoagulated (warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants, DOAC). RESULTS: 200/2307 (9%) patients were anticoagulated. 84% were on warfarin, and the rest a DOAC. Compared to those anticoagulated, there was a higher prevalence of dementia (25% vs. 18%, p = 0.02) and a lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease (54% vs. 78%, p < 0.01), atrial fibrillation (10% vs. 82%, p < 0.01), and polypharmacy (55% vs. 76%, p < 0.01). Renal function was lower in the anticoagulated group. Time to operation for those not anticoagulated and anticoagulated was a median (IQR) of 25 (15) and 27 (18) hours. There was no difference in blood transfusion and hospital mortality. Postoperative complications were similar except a higher rate of renal failure (14% vs. 19%, p = 0.04) and heart failure (1% vs. 5%, p < 0.01), and a longer length of stay [median (IQR): 14 (10) vs. 16 (12) days] in the anticoagulated group. This was no longer significant after adjustment of confounders. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in health outcomes between those anticoagulated and those not after adjusting for patient characteristics. It was feasible to avoid significant delay in hip fracture surgery in those anticoagulated.

Predicting fracture risk in osteoporosis: the use of fracture prediction tools in an osteoporosis clinic population.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends either fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) or QFracture to estimate the 10 year fracture risk of individuals. However, it is not known how these tools compare in determining risk and subsequent treatment using set intervention thresholds or guidelines. METHODS: The 10 year major osteoporotic (MO) and hip (HI) fracture risks were calculated for 100 women attending osteoporosis clinic in 2010 using FRAX and QFracture, and subsequent agreement to treatment between the tools was looked at using National Osteoporosis Foundation and National Bone Health Alliance thresholds (FRAX-20/3 and QFracture 20/3). We also looked at using these thresholds for QFracture and comparing them with the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidelines for FRAX (FRAX-NOGG). RESULTS: The 10 year risk for MO fracture for FRAX was 17.0% (IQR 10.8-24.0) and that of QFracture was 15.8% (IQR 9.5-27.7) (p=0.732). The 10 year risk for HI fracture for FRAX was 5.0% (IQR 2.1-8.9) and that of QFracture was 8.1% (IQR 2.5-21.6) (p<0.001). The agreement between FRAX-20/3 and QFracture-20/3 was greater than the agreement between FRAX-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG or QFracture-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated 10 year risk for MO fracture between FRAX and QFracture was similar, whereas that of HI fracture was significantly different. The agreement to treatment between QFracture-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG was only 45%. Treatment decisions can differ depending on the fracture calculation tool used when coupled with certain intervention thresholds or guidelines.

Improving outcomes for patients with proximal femoral fractures.

A peri-operative bay was created to treat all patients with proximal femoral fractures admitted to one trauma ward at the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham. All patients had urinary catheterisation and their fluid intake and output was recorded; patients had daily blood tests and were cared for on pressure-relieving mattresses. In addition, a study day was provided for all nursing staff on the management of patients with proximal femoral fractures. These measures resulted in a significant decrease in the incidence of acute kidney injury, reduced the length of hospital stay for patients on this ward and reduced the numbers of falls and pressure-related injuries for these patients.

Evolution of the hip fracture population: time to consider the future? A retrospective observational analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how the population with fractured neck of femur has changed over the last decade and determine whether they have evolved to become a more physically and socially dependent cohort. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected Standardised Audit of Hip Fractures of Europe data entered on to an institutional hip fracture registry. PARTICIPANTS: 10 044 consecutive hip fracture admissions (2000-2012). SETTING: A major trauma centre in the UK. RESULTS: There was a generalised increase in the number of admissions between 2000 (n=740) and 2012 (n=810). This increase was non-linear and best described by a quadratic curve. Assuming no change in the prevalence of hip fracture over the next 20 years, our hospital is projected to treat 871 cases in 2020 and 925 in 2030. This represents an approximate year-on-year increase of just over 1%. There was an increase in the proportion of male admissions over the study period (2000: 174 of 740 admissions (23.5%); 2012: 249 of 810 admissions (30.7%)). This mirrored national census changes within the geographical area during the same period. During the study period there were significant increases in the numbers of patients admitted from their own home, the proportion of patients requiring assistance to mobilise, and the proportion of patients requiring help with basic activities of daily living (all p<0.001). There was also a twofold to fourfold increase in the proportion of patients admitted with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, renal disease, diabetes and polypharmacy (use of >4 prescribed medications; all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The expanding hip fracture population has increasingly complex medical, social and rehabilitation care needs. This needs to be recognised so that appropriate healthcare strategies and service planning can be implemented. This epidemiological analysis allows projections of future service need in terms of patient numbers and dependency.

Oesophageal candidiasis in elderly patients: risk factors, prevention and management.

This article reviews risk factors, prevention and management of oesophageal candidiasis (OC) in the elderly. Putative risk factors for OC in the elderly include old age itself, malignant disease, antibacterial and corticosteroid use, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acid suppression treatment, oesophageal dysmotility and other local factors, diabetes mellitus and HIV/AIDS. We have found evidence for a risk association between OC in the elderly and malignant disease (both haematological and non-haematological), antibacterial therapy and corticosteroid (including inhaled corticosteroids) use. We also found evidence of an association between OC in the elderly and oesophageal dysmotility or HIV/AIDS, but little direct evidence of an association between diabetes or old age per se. The literature on OC in the elderly is not large. The published series evaluating OC in this age group are small in size, often do not contain controls and mostly contain only limited information about the age of the patients. Prevention of OC is mainly the avoidance of exposure to the risk factors wherever possible. Specific measures such as highly active antiretroviral therapy in AIDS, prophylactic fluconazole when receiving chemotherapy for malignancy, using spacing devices, mouth rinsing soon after inhalation of corticosteroids and avoiding the use of cortiocosteroids just before bedtime are useful. OC is often responsive to a 2- to 3-week course of oral fluconazole, but resistance may be encountered in AIDS or in the presence of uncorrected anatomical factors in the oesophagus. Itraconazole solution, voriconazole or caspofungin may be used in refractory cases. Use of amphotericin B is restricted because of its narrow therapeutic index.