Evidence Hub

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

Blauth M, Joeris A, Rometsch E, Espinoza-Rebmann K, Wattanapanom P, Jarayabhand R, Poeze M, Wong MK et al.

BMJ open, 2021

281 participants · 12 citations

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),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 281 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free