Gibson Alistair A, Hay Alasdair W, Ray David C
Department of Anaesthesia & Critical Care, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Department of Critical Care, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Injury. 2014 Jul;45(7):1066-70. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.037. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
Although there is much current debate about the use of critical care to enhance peri-operative care of patients with hip fracture there are limited supporting data. We investigated the epidemiology, critical care interventions and outcomes of patients with hip fracture admitted to a large UK critical care unit.
We reviewed all patients with hip fracture (excluding those with multiple trauma, and those with femoral shaft or peri-prosthetic fracture) who were admitted to our critical care unit during a four year period. We recorded patient characteristics, reason for admission to critical care, interventions and organ support performed, and patient outcome.
We identified 99 patients with a mean age of 81 years; this represented 1% of patients admitted to critical care, and 2.4% of patients with hip fracture admitted to hospital during the study period. Fifty-two patients required no organ support; 19 received only respiratory support, 13 only cardiovascular support, 12 received both respiratory and cardiovascular support, and 3 received respiratory, cardiovascular and renal support. Outcome worsened as the level of organ support increased (p=0.01). Fifteen patients died in critical care, acute hospital mortality was 33% and 1-year mortality was 54%. No patient for whom admission was planned before surgery died in critical care and the 30-day mortality for this group was 13%. Outcome was related to the time between surgery and critical care admission: patients admitted before surgery or longer than 2 days after surgery had worse outcomes (p=0.001). The reason for admission to critical care also influenced outcome: patients with sepsis had poor outcome with one-third dying in critical care and a further one-third not surviving to hospital discharge.
The major determinants of outcome in this population were reason for admission, and timing of admission to critical care. One year survival was better than that for unselected patients aged >80 years admitted to critical care. Admission to critical care and use of enhanced peri-operative care for selected hip fracture patients is entirely appropriate and beneficial.
尽管目前关于使用重症监护来加强髋部骨折患者围手术期护理存在诸多争议,但支持数据有限。我们调查了一家大型英国重症监护病房收治的髋部骨折患者的流行病学情况、重症监护干预措施及结局。
我们回顾了在四年期间入住我们重症监护病房的所有髋部骨折患者(不包括多发伤患者以及股骨干或假体周围骨折患者)。我们记录了患者特征、入住重症监护的原因、所采取的干预措施及器官支持情况,以及患者结局。
我们确定了99例患者,平均年龄为81岁;这占入住重症监护患者的1%,占研究期间入院髋部骨折患者的2.4%。52例患者无需器官支持;19例仅接受呼吸支持,13例仅接受心血管支持,12例同时接受呼吸和心血管支持,3例接受呼吸、心血管和肾脏支持。随着器官支持水平的提高,结局恶化(p = 0.01)。15例患者在重症监护中死亡,急性医院死亡率为33%,1年死亡率为54%。术前计划入住的患者在重症监护中无死亡,该组30天死亡率为13%。结局与手术和入住重症监护之间的时间有关:术前或术后超过2天入住的患者结局较差(p = 0.001)。入住重症监护的原因也影响结局:脓毒症患者结局较差,三分之一在重症监护中死亡,另有三分之一未存活至出院。
该人群结局的主要决定因素是入住原因和入住重症监护的时间。1年生存率优于入住重症监护的80岁以上未选患者。对于选定的髋部骨折患者,入住重症监护并采用强化围手术期护理是完全合适且有益的。