4.4 Article

Prediction of postoperative mortality in elderly patient with hip fractures: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study

Journal

BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-018-0646-x

Keywords

Biomarkers; C-reactive protein; Frailty; Hip fractures; Hospital mortality

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundElderly patients are at high risk for postoperative complications and increased mortality after hip fracture (HF) surgery due to frailty and co-morbidities. The prediction of postoperative outcome could be used for clinical decision making. A reliable score to predict postoperative mortality after HF surgery in this sub-population remains unavailable.MethodsA single-centre retrospective cohort study was performed in 782 patients who were operated on for HF. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC)-curves were used to analyse the performance of gender, age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) at admission (D-0) as prognostic factors, alone or combined with the PreOperative Score to predict PostOperative Mortality (POSPOM) in univariate and multivariate linear regression models.ResultsNo correlation between gender, age, NLR D-0 or CRP D-0 and postoperative, intra-hospital mortality was found. The Area Under the ROC-curve (AUC) for age, male gender, NLR and CRP were 0.61 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.45-0.61], 0.56 [95% CI=0.42-0.56], 0.47 [95% CI=0.29-0.47] and 0.49 [95% CI=0.31-0.49] respectively. Combination with the POSPOM score did not increase its discriminative capacity as neither age (AUC=0.69, 95% CI=0.54-0.69), gender (AUC=0.72, 95% CI=0.58-0.72), NLR D-0 (AUC=0.71, 95% CI=0.56-0.71), nor the CRP D-0 (AUC=0.71, 95% CI=0.58-0.71) improved the POSPOM performance.ConclusionsNeither age, gender, NLR D-0 nor CRP D-0 are suitable parameters to predict postoperative, intra-hospital mortality in elderly patients undergoing surgery for HF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available