4.7 Article

The relationship between nutritional status of hip fracture operated elderly patients and their functioning, comorbidity and outcome

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 917-921

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2012.03.010

Keywords

Hip-fracture; MNA; Elderly; Functioning; Cognition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims: Malnutrition is common in hip fracture elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the Mini Nutrition Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) and cognitive, functional status, comorbidity and outcome of operated patients. Methods: Clinical data, MNA, functioning, cognition were prospectively determined. Retrospectively, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) were applied. Results: The study consisted of 95 well-nourished (WN), 95 at risk of malnutrition (ARM) and 25 malnourished (MN) patients. More WN patients were independent vs. partially or fully dependent; more WN patients were cognitively normal vs. cognitively impaired (p < 0.001). CIRS-G was higher in MN vs. WN patients and CCI was higher in MN and ARM vs. WN patients (p < 0.001). During a 6 month period, 100 patients were readmitted, with less readmissions in the WN group (p = 0.024). During a 36 month follow-up, 79 patients died. The mortality rate was lower, in the WN group (p = 0.01). Stepwise regression analysis found that the only independent variables for mortality were CCI and functioning (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients with higher cognitive and functional status were in superior nutritional condition. Poor nutritional status was associated with higher comorbidity indices, mortality and readmissions. However, we found that only comorbidity and low functioning can predict long-term mortality. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available