4.5 Article

Clinical evidence of diabetes mellitus end-organ damage as risk factor for falls complicated by hip fracture: A multi-center study of 1225 patients

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 109, 期 2, 页码 233-237

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2015.05.050

关键词

Diabetes; End-organ damage; Hip fracture; Fall; Elderly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To identify the differential characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complicated by end-organ damage who experience a fall-related hip fracture. Methods: We analyzed the socio-demographic data and index fall clinical characteristics of a group of patients with nephropathy, neuropathy or retinopathy related to T2DM consecutively admitted to six hospitals in Barcelona, Spain because of a fall-related hip fracture. Results: Out of 1225 patients admitted because of a fall-related hip fracture, 107 (8.7%) had clinical evidence of end-organ damage related to T2DM. Among this cohort the mean number of falls during the year prior to the index admission was 2.6 +/- 3.2; and 29 of them (27.1%) had already experienced three or more falls. Most falls leading to the index admission took place at the patients' home, from a standing position, and during daylight time. An intrinsic cause of falling was identified in all but one of these patients. Multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that, compared to patients without this diagnosis, patients with complicated T2DM were younger (odds ratio 0.762), had less prevalence of dementia (odds ratio 0.078), but had experienced a higher number of falls in the previous year (odds 1.183). Conclusions: A significant amount of patients with clinical evidence of end-organ damage due to T2DM who experience a fall-related hip fracture have a history of recurrent falling in the previous year. These patients should be identified and offered preventive actions aimed at reducing their risk of falling. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据