A 2-Minute Cognitive Screener for Predicting 1-Year Functional Recovery and Survival in Older Adults After Hip Fracture Repair

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
Citação
JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY SERIES A-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND MEDICAL SCIENCES, v.77, n.1, p.172-179, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Implementing cognitive assessment in older people admitted to hospital with hip fracture-lying in bed, experiencing pain-is challenging. We investigated the value of a quick and easy-to-administer 10-point Cognitive Screener (10-CS) in predicting 1-year functional recovery and survival after hip surgery. Methods: Prospective cohort study comprising 304 older patients (mean age = 80.3 +/- 9.1 years; women = 72%) with hip fracture consecutively admitted to a specialized academic medical center that supports secondary hospitals in Sao Paulo Metropolitan Area, Brazil. The 10-CS, a 2-minute bedside tool including temporal orientation, verbal fluency, and three-word recall, classified patients as having normal cognition, possible cognitive impairment, or probable cognitive impairment on admission. Outcomes were time-torecovery activities of daily living (ADLs; Katz index) and mobility (New Mobility Score), and survival during 1-year after hip surgery. Hazard models, considering death as a competing risk, were used to associate the 10-CS categories with outcomes after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical measures. Results: On admission, 144 (47%) patients had probable cognitive impairment. Compared to those cognitively normal, patients with probable cognitive impairment presented less postsurgical recovery of ADLs (77% vs 40%; adjusted sub-hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI] = 0.32-0.62) and mobility (50% vs 30%; adjusted sub-HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.34-0.79), and higher risk of death (15% vs 40%; adjusted HR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.03-4.20) over 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: The 10-CS is a strong predictor of functional recovery and survival after hip fracture repair. Cognitive assessment using quick and easy-to-administer screening tools like 10-CS can help clinicians make better decisions and offer tailored care for older patients admitted with hip fracture.
Palavras-chave
Cognitive impairment, Competing risk, Hip fracture, Prognosis, Screening
Referências
  1. Aliberti MJR, 2021, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V76, P1134, DOI 10.1093/gerona/glaa303
  2. Aliberti MJR, 2020, CLIN NUTR, V39, P2114, DOI 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.08.026
  3. Aliberti MJR, 2019, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V74, P1637, DOI 10.1093/gerona/glz109
  4. Apolinario D, 2016, INT J GERIATR PSYCH, V31, P4, DOI 10.1002/gps.4282
  5. Baker NL, 2011, AGE AGEING, V40, P49, DOI 10.1093/ageing/afq146
  6. Beveridge M, 2004, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V86A, P1819, DOI 10.2106/00004623-200408000-00029
  7. Borson S, 2003, J AM GERIATR SOC, V51, P1451, DOI 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x
  8. Brodaty H, 2002, J AM GERIATR SOC, V50, P530, DOI 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50122.x
  9. CHARLSON ME, 1987, J CHRON DIS, V40, P373, DOI 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
  10. Daabiss M, 2011, INDIAN J ANAESTH, V55, P111, DOI 10.4103/0019-5049.79879
  11. Daniels Alan H, 2014, Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ), V43, pE146
  12. DELONG ER, 1988, BIOMETRICS, V44, P837, DOI 10.2307/2531595
  13. FOLSTEIN MF, 1983, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V40, P812
  14. Fortes SQ, 2016, AGE AGEING, V45, P711, DOI 10.1093/ageing/afw084
  15. Hill AM, 2021, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V76, P1814, DOI 10.1093/gerona/glaa283
  16. HODKINSON H M, 1972, Age and Ageing, V1, P233, DOI 10.1093/ageing/1.4.233
  17. INOUYE SK, 1990, ANN INTERN MED, V113, P941, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-113-12-941
  18. Jones CA, 2017, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V72, P61, DOI 10.1093/gerona/glv138
  19. Kata A, 2020, J GEN INTERN MED, V35, P1946, DOI 10.1007/s11606-020-05644-1
  20. KATZ S, 1963, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V185, P914, DOI 10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016
  21. Kotwal AA, 2020, J AM GERIATR SOC, V68, P1796, DOI 10.1111/jgs.16451
  22. Lavikainen P, 2020, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V75, P2184, DOI 10.1093/gerona/glaa199
  23. Lee TH, 1999, CIRCULATION, V100, P1043, DOI 10.1161/01.CIR.100.10.1043
  24. Mitchell R, 2017, ARCH GERONTOL GERIAT, V72, P135, DOI 10.1016/j.archger.2017.06.006
  25. Mizrahi EH, 2018, ARCH GERONTOL GERIAT, V78, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.archger.2018.06.016
  26. Mukka Sebastian, 2017, Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, V27, P653, DOI 10.1007/s00590-016-1873-9
  27. Nardi M, 2018, J AM MED DIR ASSOC, V19, P122, DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.08.009
  28. Nasreddine ZS, 2005, J AM GERIATR SOC, V53, P695, DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
  29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2018, NAT I HLTH CAR EXC C
  30. Neerland BE, 2017, PLOS ONE, V12, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0180641
  31. Ouellet JA, 2019, J AM GERIATR SOC, V67, P1386, DOI 10.1111/jgs.15870
  32. PARKER MJ, 1993, J BONE JOINT SURG BR, V75, P797, DOI 10.1302/0301-620X.75B5.8376443
  33. Pencina MJ, 2012, STAT MED, V31, P101, DOI 10.1002/sim.4348
  34. Savino E, 2013, AM J MED, V126, P1068, DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.017
  35. Smith T, 2014, AGE AGEING, V43, P464, DOI 10.1093/ageing/afu065
  36. Soderqvist A, 2006, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V88A, P2115, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.E.01409
  37. Stenvall M, 2012, ARCH GERONTOL GERIAT, V54, pE284, DOI 10.1016/j.archger.2011.08.013
  38. Stolz E, 2021, J GERONTOL A-BIOL, V76, P1260, DOI 10.1093/gerona/glaa234
  39. Tang VL, 2017, J GEN INTERN MED, V32, P153, DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3848-2
  40. Yiannopoulou KG, 2012, HIP INT, V22, P209, DOI 10.5301/HIP.2012.9229