BACKGROUND: A hip fracture causes bleeding, pain and immobility, and initiates inflammatory, hypercoagulable, catabolic and stress states. Accelerated surgery may improve outcomes by reducing the duration of these states and immobility. We undertook a pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated care (i.e., rapid medical clearance and surgery) and standard care among patients with a hip fracture. METHODS:Patients aged 45 years or older who, during weekday, daytime working hours, received a diagnosis of a hip fracture requiring surgery were randomly assigned to receive accelerated or standard care. Our feasibility outcomes included the proportion of eligible patients randomly assigned, completeness of follow-up and timelines of accelerated surgery. The main clinical outcome, assessed by data collectors and adjudicators who were unaware of study group allocations, was a major perioperative complication (i.e., a composite of death, preoperative myocardial infarction, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, stroke, and life-threatening or major bleeding) within 30 days of randomization. RESULTS:Of patients eligible for inclusion, 80% consented and were randomly assigned to groups (30 to accelerated care and 30 to standard care) at 2 centres in Canada and 1 centre in India. All patients completed 30-day follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to surgery was 6.0 hours in the accelerated care group and 24.2 hours in the standard care group (p < 0.001). A major perioperative complication occurred in 9 (30%) of the patients in the accelerated care group and 14 (47%) of the patients in the standard care group (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.39). INTERPRETATION: These results show the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated and standard care among patients with hip fracture and support a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01344343.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A hip fracture causes bleeding, pain and immobility, and initiates inflammatory, hypercoagulable, catabolic and stress states. Accelerated surgery may improve outcomes by reducing the duration of these states and immobility. We undertook a pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated care (i.e., rapid medical clearance and surgery) and standard care among patients with a hip fracture. METHODS:Patients aged 45 years or older who, during weekday, daytime working hours, received a diagnosis of a hip fracture requiring surgery were randomly assigned to receive accelerated or standard care. Our feasibility outcomes included the proportion of eligible patients randomly assigned, completeness of follow-up and timelines of accelerated surgery. The main clinical outcome, assessed by data collectors and adjudicators who were unaware of study group allocations, was a major perioperative complication (i.e., a composite of death, preoperative myocardial infarction, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, stroke, and life-threatening or major bleeding) within 30 days of randomization. RESULTS: Of patients eligible for inclusion, 80% consented and were randomly assigned to groups (30 to accelerated care and 30 to standard care) at 2 centres in Canada and 1 centre in India. All patients completed 30-day follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to surgery was 6.0 hours in the accelerated care group and 24.2 hours in the standard care group (p < 0.001). A major perioperative complication occurred in 9 (30%) of the patients in the accelerated care group and 14 (47%) of the patients in the standard care group (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.39). INTERPRETATION: These results show the feasibility of a trial comparing accelerated and standard care among patients with hip fracture and support a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01344343.
Authors: T J Ryan; J L Anderson; E M Antman; B A Braniff; N H Brooks; R M Califf; L D Hillis; L F Hiratzka; E Rapaport; B J Riegel; R O Russell; E E Smith; W D Weaver Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-11-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gretchen M Orosz; Jay Magaziner; Edward L Hannan; R Sean Morrison; Kenneth Koval; Marvin Gilbert; Maryann McLaughlin; Ethan A Halm; Jason J Wang; Ann Litke; Stacey B Silberzweig; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Werner Hacke; Geoffrey Donnan; Cesare Fieschi; Markku Kaste; Rüdiger von Kummer; Joseph P Broderick; Thomas Brott; Michael Frankel; James C Grotta; E Clarke Haley; Thomas Kwiatkowski; Steven R Levine; Chris Lewandowski; Mei Lu; Patrick Lyden; John R Marler; Suresh Patel; Barbara C Tilley; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Manfred Wilhelm; Scott Hamilton Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel Pincus; Bheeshma Ravi; David Wasserstein; Anjie Huang; J Michael Paterson; Avery B Nathens; Hans J Kreder; Richard J Jenkinson; Walter P Wodchis Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Siu Him Janus Wong; Xinshuo Christian Fang; King Hang Dennis Yee; Tak Man Wong; Cheuk Ting Terence Pun; Tak Wing Lau; Ka Li Frankie Leung Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Daniel I McIsaac; Karim Abdulla; Homer Yang; Sudhir Sundaresan; Paula Doering; Sandeep Green Vaswani; Kednapa Thavorn; Alan J Forster Journal: CMAJ Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Daniel Pincus; David Wasserstein; Bheeshma Ravi; James P Byrne; Anjie Huang; J Michael Paterson; Avery B Nathens; Hans J Kreder; Richard J Jenkinson; Walter P Wodchis Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 8.262