Zaib Jehan, Madni Abdulaziz, Saad Azhar Muhammad
Trauma and Orthopaedics, Hull University Teaching Hospitals, Hull, GBR.
Trauma and Orthopaedics, The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, GBR.
Cureus. 2023 Sep 11;15(9):e45070. doi: 10.7759/cureus.45070. eCollection 2023 Sep.
Objective To assess the predictive value of three scoring systems, namely the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), in predicting mortality among patients with hip fractures. Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study included 628 participants aged 60 years and above who sought treatment at a UK hospital between January 2018 and December 2018. Data on age, gender, mortality, and assessment scores were collected. The area under the curve was calculated for each receiver operator characteristic (ROC). Cross-tabulation was performed to examine the association between various assessment scores and mortality using the chi-square test. Results The mean age was 80.80±11.18 years. Females were 408 (64.97%). Higher CFS (p<0.001) and NHFS (p<0.001) scores were significantly associated with mortality, while the ASA score did not show a significant association (p=0.225). The calculated area under the curve (AUC) values were as follows: 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.76) for CFS, 0.46 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.53) for NHFS, and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.48) for the ASA score. Utilizing a cut-off of ≥6 for CFS, 57 individuals (98.3%) in the 30-day mortality group were correctly identified. Similarly, the ROC analysis determined a ≥5 cut-off for NHFS accurately predicting 50 patients (86.2%) who deceased within 30 days. Applying an ASA ≥3 cut-off resulted in a predictive mortality rate of 56 (96.6%). The NHFS score demonstrated the highest predictive capability for mortality, with patients scoring ≥5 having a significantly higher risk of mortality compared to those with a score <5. Conclusion This study showed robust correlations between high CFS (≥6) and NHFS (≥5), and mortality within the hip fracture patient cohort.
目的 评估美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级、临床衰弱量表(CFS)和诺丁汉髋部骨折评分(NHFS)这三种评分系统在预测髋部骨折患者死亡率方面的价值。材料与方法 这项回顾性队列研究纳入了2018年1月至2018年12月期间在英国一家医院寻求治疗的628名60岁及以上的参与者。收集了年龄、性别、死亡率和评估分数的数据。计算每个受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下的面积。使用卡方检验进行交叉制表,以检验各种评估分数与死亡率之间的关联。结果 平均年龄为80.80±11.18岁。女性有408名(64.97%)。较高的CFS评分(p<0.001)和NHFS评分(p<0.001)与死亡率显著相关,而ASA评分未显示出显著关联(p=0.225)。计算得到的曲线下面积(AUC)值如下:CFS为0.71(95%CI:0.65至0.76),NHFS为0.46(95%CI:0.39至0.53),ASA评分为0.41(95%CI:0.34至0.48)。对于CFS,采用≥6的截断值,30天死亡率组中的57名个体(98.3%)被正确识别。同样,ROC分析确定NHFS≥5的截断值能准确预测30天内死亡的50名患者(86.2%)。应用ASA≥3的截断值导致预测死亡率为56(96.6%)。NHFS评分对死亡率的预测能力最高,评分≥5的患者与评分<5的患者相比,死亡风险显著更高。结论 本研究表明,在髋部骨折患者队列中,高CFS(≥6)和NHFS(≥5)与死亡率之间存在密切关联。