RESUMO
Introduction Hip fracture is commonly seen in elderly patients because of low-energy trauma. It carries significant morbidity and mortality. Scoring systems such as the Nottingham hip fracture score (NHFS) have shown a good correlation with increased mortality as the value of these scores increases. In our study, we aim to ascertain the hip fracture mortality in our population, compare the mortality in hip fractures compared to previously reported figures in literature and nationally reported figures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and also ascertain the usefulness of NHFS in predicting mortality in hip fractures. Methods We gathered mortality data on hip fracture patients admitted to our unit from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. NHFS was calculated for all patients and the 30-day mortality rate was compared to previously reported hip fracture mortality rates using the standard mortality ratio (SMR). One-year mortality was stratified by placing patients in high and low NHFS groups. The log-rank test was used to compare hip fracture survival at one month and at one year in the high NHFS (NHFS >4) group and low NHFS group (NHFS value 4 or below). Additionally, a log-rank test was used to compare one-month and one-year survival in hip fractures managed with hemiarthroplasty, dynamic hip screw and intramedullary nail. Results In 2020, 388 patients were admitted with hip fractures to our unit. The crude mortality rate was 3.9% at 30 days and 20.88% at one year. Compared to the National Hip Fracture Database report for 2020, the incidence risk ratio for mortality was 0.46 (p-value<0.05). The SMR at 30 days was 0.34 (CI=0.17-0.51) and the SMR at one year was 0.63 (CI=0.49-0.77). The survival rate was higher at 30 days and one year in the low NHFS group compared to the high NHFS group (p-value<0.01). The survival rate at one month and one year were similar in groups managed with hemiarthroplasty, dynamic hip screws, and intramedullary nails (p-value>0.05). Conclusions Hip fracture mortality has been decreasing steadily and we noted a lower rate of hip fracture mortality compared to figures reported previously as per NHFS studies even though the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic period. We also noted lower 30-day mortality in our hospital as compared to the national 30-day mortality rate for hip fracture patients in 2020.
RESUMO
Rationale: Lung clearance index (LCI) has good intravisit repeatability with better sensitivity in detecting lung disease on computed tomography scan compared with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in adults with bronchiectasis. Alternative multiple-breath washout parameters have not been systematically studied in bronchiectasis. Objectives: To determine the validity, repeatability, sensitivity, specificity, and feasibility of standard LCI (LCI2.5), shortened LCI (LCI5.0), ventilation heterogeneity arising within proximal conducting airways (ScondVT), and ventilation heterogeneity arising within the acinar airways (SacinVT) in a cross-sectional observational cohort of adults with bronchiectasis. Methods: Cross-sectional multiple-breath nitrogen washout data (Exhalyzer D; Eco Medics AG) from 132 patients with bronchiectasis across five United Kingdom centers (BronchUK Clinimetrics study) and 88 healthy control subjects were analyzed. Results: Within-test repeatability (mean coefficient of variation) was <5% for both LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 in patients with bronchiectasis, and there was no difference in mean coefficient of variation for LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 in patients with bronchiectasis compared with healthy volunteers. Moderate-strength correlations were seen between FEV1 and LCI2.5 (r = -0.54), LCI5.0 (r = -0.53), ScondVT (r = -0.35), and SacinVT (r = -0.38) z-scores. The proportion of subjects with abnormal multiple-breath washout (z-score > 2) but in normal FEV1 (z-score < -2) was 42% (LCI2.5) and 36% (LCI5.0). Overall results from the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that LCI2.5 had the greatest combined sensitivity and specificity to discriminate between bronchiectasis and control subjects, followed by LCI5.0, FEV1, and ScondVT z-scores. There was a 57% time saving with LCI5.0. Conclusions: LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 had good within-test repeatability and superior sensitivity compared with spirometry measures in differentiating between health and bronchiectasis disease. LCI5.0 is quicker and more feasible than LCI2.5. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02468271).
