Smith Toby O, Gilbert Anthony W, Sreekanta Ashwini, Sahota Opinder, Griffin Xavier L, Cross Jane L, Fox Chris, Lamb Sarah E
University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LD.
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Therapies Department, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, UK, HA7 4LP.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 7;2(2):CD010569. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010569.pub3.
Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.
(a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care.
We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019.
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.
髋部骨折是一种严重损伤,给受影响的个体及其家庭和护理人员带来重大问题。超过40%的髋部骨折患者患有痴呆症或认知障碍。这些患者术后的结果比没有痴呆症的患者更差。目前尚不清楚哪种护理和康复干预措施能为这些患者带来最佳效果。这是Cochrane系统评价的更新版,该评价首次发表于2013年。
(a)评估与常规护理相比,包括专门为髋部骨折手术后患有痴呆症的患者设计的强化康复策略在内的护理模式的有效性。(b)评估与常规护理相比,为所有老年人(无论认知状态如何)设计的包括强化康复策略在内的护理模式对髋部骨折手术后患有痴呆症的患者的有效性。
我们于2019年10月16日检索了ALOIS(www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois)、Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组专业注册库、MEDLINE(OvidSP)、Embase(OvidSP)、PsycINFO(OvidSP)、CINAHL(EBSCOhost)、科学引文索引核心合集(ISI Web of Science)、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库(BIREME)、ClinicalTrials.gov以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台。
我们纳入了随机对照试验和半随机对照试验,以评估与常规护理相比,髋部骨折手术后针对患有痴呆症的患者的任何强化护理和康复模式的有效性。
两位综述作者独立选择纳入试验并提取数据。我们评估了纳入试验的偏倚风险。只有当我们认为试验在参与者、干预措施和结果方面足够同质时,才对数据进行综合分析。我们使用GRADE方法对每个结果的证据总体确定性进行评级。
我们纳入了7项试验,共555名参与者。3项试验比较了住院环境中的强化护理模式与常规护理。2项试验比较了住院环境和出院后在家中提供的强化护理模式与常规护理。2项试验比较了老年科医生主导的住院护理与骨科团队主导的常规护理。没有一项干预措施是专门为患有痴呆症的患者设计的,因此综述中纳入的数据来自参与髋部骨折后所有老年人护理模式研究的随机对照试验中的痴呆症或认知障碍亚组。试验的随访结束时间从急性出院时到出院后24个月不等。我们认为所有试验在多个领域都存在高偏倚风险。作为大型试验的亚组分析,缺乏检测干预组之间差异的效力。此外,实验组和对照组参与者的基线特征存在一些重要差异。使用GRADE方法,我们将所有结果的证据确定性降至低或极低。几乎所有比较的效应估计都非常不精确,大多数结果的总体确定性非常低。我们的主要结局“健康相关生活质量”没有任何研究的数据。我们的另一个主要结局“日常生活活动和功能表现”的确定性也非常低,因此我们无法自信地得出任何结论。住院期间强化护理和康复可能会降低术后谵妄发生率(比值比0.04,95%置信区间(CI)0.01至0.22,2项试验,n = 141),确定性低,且与其他一些并发症发生率较低的关联确定性极低。与骨科主导的管理相比,老年科医生主导的管理可能会缩短住院时间(平均差异4.00天,95%CI 3.61至4.39,1项试验,n = 162),确定性低。
我们发现有限证据表明,纳入试验中使用的一些强化康复和护理模式可能比常规护理在预防髋部骨折后患有痴呆症的患者谵妄和缩短住院时间方面更具优势。然而,这些结果的确定性较低。仅有少数试验的数据,所有其他结果的确定性都非常低。确定改善这一不断增长的患者群体结局的最佳策略应是研究重点。