Kathleen K Mangione1, Rebecca L Craik2, Anne Kenny3, Arteid Memaj4, Melissa F Miller5, Menki Chen1, Molly Weingart1, Denise Orwig6, Jay Magaziner6. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA. 2. College of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, UConn Center on Aging, University of Connecticut, Farmington, USA. 4. Departments of Computer Science and Mathematics & Public Health, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA. 5. Department of Public Health, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of frailty on walking recovery after hip fracture has not been reported. We describe the prevalence of frailty approximately 3 months after hip fracture, and identify the impact of baseline frailty on ambulation recovery. METHODS: Data from the Community Ambulation Project, that examined the effects of 2 multicomponent home exercise programs on 6-minute walk test in participants post hip fracture, were used to reconstruct the 5-item frailty phenotype. We detailed the prevalence of frailty by subgroup and assessed the comparability between frailty groups for the categorical variable of achieving 300 m in 6-minute walk test (community ambulation threshold), and the continuous variable of total distance in 6-minute walk test before and after 16 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Of the 210 participants, 9% were nonfrail, 59% were prefrail, and 32% were frail. The odds of a nonfrail participant achieving the 300-m threshold were 14.4 (95% CI: 2.4-87.6) times the odds of a frail participant, while a prefrail participant's odds were 6.1 (95% CI: 1.3-28.4) times after controlling for treatment group and baseline walking distance. The nonfrail participants had an increase of 92.1 m from baseline to 16 weeks, the prefrail had a 50.8 m increase, and the frail group had the smallest increase of 36.6 m (p < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Prefrailty and frailty were highly prevalent in this sample of community-dwelling survivors of a recent hip fracture. Gains in walking distance and attaining a level of community ambulation were affected significantly by the level of baseline frailty.
BACKGROUND: The impact of frailty on walking recovery after hip fracture has not been reported. We describe the prevalence of frailty approximately 3 months after hip fracture, and identify the impact of baseline frailty on ambulation recovery. METHODS: Data from the Community Ambulation Project, that examined the effects of 2 multicomponent home exercise programs on 6-minute walk test in participants post hip fracture, were used to reconstruct the 5-item frailty phenotype. We detailed the prevalence of frailty by subgroup and assessed the comparability between frailty groups for the categorical variable of achieving 300 m in 6-minute walk test (community ambulation threshold), and the continuous variable of total distance in 6-minute walk test before and after 16 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Of the 210 participants, 9% were nonfrail, 59% were prefrail, and 32% were frail. The odds of a nonfrail participant achieving the 300-m threshold were 14.4 (95% CI: 2.4-87.6) times the odds of a frail participant, while a prefrail participant's odds were 6.1 (95% CI: 1.3-28.4) times after controlling for treatment group and baseline walking distance. The nonfrail participants had an increase of 92.1 m from baseline to 16 weeks, the prefrail had a 50.8 m increase, and the frail group had the smallest increase of 36.6 m (p < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Prefrailty and frailty were highly prevalent in this sample of community-dwelling survivors of a recent hip fracture. Gains in walking distance and attaining a level of community ambulation were affected significantly by the level of baseline frailty.
Authors: Olga Theou; Lynne Cann; Joanna Blodgett; Lindsay M K Wallace; Thomas D Brothers; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Maren S Fragala; Dawn E Alley; Michelle D Shardell; Tamara B Harris; Robert R McLean; Douglas P Kiel; Peggy M Cawthon; Thuy-Tien L Dam; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Maria T Vassileva; Vilmunder Gudnason; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Annemarie Koster; Anne Newman; Kristin Siggeirsdottir; Suzanne Satterfield; Stephanie A Studenski; Anne M Kenny Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Matteo Cesari; Bruno Vellas; Fang-Chi Hsu; Anne B Newman; Hani Doss; Abby C King; Todd M Manini; Timothy Church; Thomas M Gill; Michael E Miller; Marco Pahor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Rita Rastogi Kalyani; Ravi Varadhan; Carlos O Weiss; Linda P Fried; Anne R Cappola Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Susan K Ewing; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Peggy M Cawthon; Katie L Stone; Teresa A Hillier; Jane A Cauley; Marc C Hochberg; Nicolas Rodondi; J Kathleen Tracy; Steven R Cummings Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-02-25
Authors: M J Kaiser; J M Bauer; C Ramsch; W Uter; Y Guigoz; T Cederholm; D R Thomas; P Anthony; K E Charlton; M Maggio; A C Tsai; D Grathwohl; B Vellas; C C Sieber Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Jay Magaziner; Kathleen K Mangione; Denise Orwig; Mona Baumgarten; Laurence Magder; Michael Terrin; Richard H Fortinsky; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Brock A Beamer; Anna N A Tosteson; Anne M Kenny; Michelle Shardell; Ellen F Binder; Kenneth Koval; Barbara Resnick; Ram Miller; Sandra Forman; Ruth McBride; Rebecca L Craik Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272