Search

Context Fragility fractures increase risks for future fractures, morbidity, and mortality. Available pharmacotherapy for underlying osteoporosis is safe and effective but underused. Objective To improve pharmacotherapy rate representing secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Methods This single-center, observational, follow-up study included patients with fragility fractures admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital between February 2016 and December 2019. For patients admitted to the orthopedics service with fragility fracture, the Massachusetts General Hospital Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) was systematically consulted. Initial outpatient follow-up with FLS was established in conjunction with the orthopedic postoperative follow-up visit. Patients at risk for failing timely outpatient follow-up were administered zoledronic acid (ZA) during the index fracture hospitalization. The main outcome measures were percentage of patients with fragility fracture(s) started on pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis and average length of stay and 30-day readmission rate of patients treated with ZA. Results Compared with baseline (8-11%) and reference (5-20%) rates, integration of FLS to the orthopedics service, along with appropriate inpatient administration of ZA, increased the pharmacotherapy rate to 70% (412/589) among eligible patients with verified treatment status. Inpatient ZA administration neither affected the average length of stay nor 30-day readmission rate. Treatment status of 37.9% (471/1240) of the study patients remained unknown due to lack of or unknown follow-up. Conclusion Integration of a FLS and orthopedics services along with inpatient ZA administration improved the osteoporosis pharmacotherapy rate among patients with fragility fracture(s) who often had obstacles for outpatient follow-up.

Context Zoledronic acid (ZA) administered during the initial hospitalization for a fragility fracture improves the osteoporosis pharmacotherapy rate. Distinguishing the safety profile of inpatient ZA (IP-ZA) in this context is crucial if this approach is to be widely adopted. Objective To study the acute safety profile of IP-ZA. Design, Setting and Patients An observational study of patients admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital with fragility fractures who were eligible to receive IP-ZA. Intervention Patients were treated with or without IP-ZA. Acetaminophen, either as a single pre-ZA dose or standing multiple-doses-per-day for 48 hours or longer after ZA infusion, was also administered along with protocolized vitamin D and calcium supplementation. Main outcome measures changes in body temperature, serum creatinine and serum calcium. Results 285 consecutive patients, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, are included in this analysis. 204 patients received IP-ZA. IP-ZA treatment was associated with a transient mean rise of body temperature of 0.31oC on the day following its administration. 15% of patients in the IP-ZA group and 4% in the non-treated group had temperatures above 38oC. Standing multiple-doses-per-day, but not a single pre-ZA dose of acetaminophen, effectively prevented this temperature increase. IP-ZA did not affect serum creatinine levels. Mean levels of serum total calcium and albumin-corrected calcium decreased by 0.54 mg/dl and 0.40 mg/dl, respectively, at their nadirs (Day 5). No patient experienced symptomatic hypocalcemia. Conclusions IP-ZA along with standing multiple-doses-per-day acetaminophen, administered to patients in the immediate post-fracture period, is not associated with significant acute adverse effects.

To determine whether nutritional status at hospital admission is independently associated with new-onset delirium (NOD) in elderly, orthopaedic trauma patients.Single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study.Data from patients at a large teaching hospital in Boston, MA, were analyzed.All patients were ≥65 years and hospitalized for acute surgical management of their major fractures after trauma.None.Nutritional status was assessed at admission using the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF). Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method within 24 hours of admission and daily throughout hospitalization.The incidence of delirium was 20% (94/471). Each unit decrement in MNA-SF was associated with a 14% higher risk of NOD (adjusted OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.05-1.28). Moreover, malnourished patients (MNA-SF score 0-7) were twice as likely to develop NOD (adjusted OR 2.07; 95% CI 1.01-4.35) compared with patients who were not malnourished (MNA-SF score 8-14).In hospitalized, elderly, orthopaedic trauma patients, poor nutritional status may be a modifiable risk factor for NOD. Future studies are needed to determine whether aggressive nutritional interventions can reduce the incidence of NOD and improve outcomes in this cohort of patients.Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Among elderly orthopedic trauma patients, the prevalence of delirium during hospitalization has been reported to be as high as 60%. Frail elderly patients have an increased risk of delirium after elective surgery; however, such an association remains underexplored among trauma patients. Our goal was to investigate whether preoperative frailty is associated with postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly orthopedic trauma patients. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. All patients were ≥ 65 years of age and were admitted to the hospital between 01/01/2017 and 08/31/2018 for surgical intervention of a significant extremity fracture. Frailty was assessed using the fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness, and loss of weight questionnaire. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method. POD was defined as new-onset delirium that occurred within 24 h after surgery. To investigate whether frailty is associated with POD, we performed a multiple variable logistic regression, controlling for biologically relevant confounders. Five hundred fifty-six patients comprised the analytic cohort. Incidence of POD was 14% (n = 80). Multiple variable regression analysis demonstrated that each unit increment in FRAIL score was associated with a 33% higher likelihood of POD (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02–1.72, p = 0.03). Our results suggest that preoperative frailty increases the risk of POD in hospitalized, elderly, orthopedic trauma patients. Future studies are needed to determine whether perioperative interventions focused on improving frailty can reduce the risk of POD and improve outcomes in this rapidly growing cohort of patients.

Background Frailty has been associated with increased incidence of postoperative delirium and mortality. We hypothesised that postoperative delirium mediates a clinically significant (≥1%) percentage of the effect of frailty on mortality in older orthopaedic trauma patients. Methods This was a single-centre, retrospective observational study including 558 adults 65 yr and older, who presented with an extremity fracture requiring hospitalisation without initial ICU admission. We used causal statistical inference methods to estimate the relationships between frailty, postoperative delirium, and mortality. Results In the cohort, 180-day mortality rate was 6.5% (36/558). Frail and prefrail patients comprised 23% and 39%, respectively, of the study cohort. Frailty was associated with increased 180 day mortality from 1.4% to 12.2% (11% difference; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4–13.6), which translated statistically into an 88.7% (79.9–94.3%) direct effect and an 11.3% (5.7–20.1%) postoperative delirium mediated effect. Prefrailty was also associated with increased 180 day mortality from 1.4% to 4.4% (2.9% difference; 2.4–3.4), which was translated into a 92.5% (83.8–99.9%) direct effect and a 7.5% (0.1–16.2%) postoperative delirium mediated effect. Conclusions Frailty is associated with increased postoperative mortality, and delirium might mediate a clinically significant, but small percentage of this effect. Studies should assess whether, in patients with frailty, attempts to mitigate delirium might decrease postoperative mortality.

Background Poor nutritional status is linked to suboptimal outcomes following elective surgery. Trauma patients do not typically have an opportunity for preoperative nutritional optimization and may be at risk for malnutrition with its related complications. Our goal was to investigate whether nutritional status is associated with development of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) in elderly, orthopedic trauma patients. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of data between 01/01/2017 to 08/30/2018 from the Massachusetts General Hospital Geriatric Inpatient Fracture Trauma Service (GIFTS). Admission nutritional status was assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and HAIs were validated through the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. To investigate whether nutritional status is associated with HAIs, we performed a multiple variable logistic regression analysis, controlling for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, glomerular filtration rate, and type of anesthesia. Results 461 patients comprised the analytic cohort. Multiple variable regression analysis demonstrated that each unit increment in MNA score was associated with a 13% reduction in risk of HAI (OR 0.87; 95%CI 0.79-0.97). Furthermore, adjusting for timing of perioperative antibiotics, perioperative transfusions, or development of pressure injury during hospitalization results did not materially change these results. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that malnutrition is highly prevalent in elderly orthopedic trauma patients and that nutritional status may influence the risk of developing HAIs in this cohort of patients. Further studies are needed to determine whether optimizing perioperative nutritional status in elderly orthopedic trauma patients can reduce infectious complications and improve overall health outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery. METHODS: From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care=68/78, intervention=69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P=0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P=0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P=0.690), and complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P=0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P=0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P=0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P=0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P=0.137) remained non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients’ palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients’ quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen’s d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect. Results: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (–0.77 vs –3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (–0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs –0.80; ES = 0.38). Conclusions: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients’ unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients’ QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Among elderly orthopedic trauma patients, the prevalence of delirium during hospitalization has been reported to be as high as 60%. Frail elderly patients have an increased risk of delirium after elective surgery; however, such an association remains underexplored among trauma patients.Our goal was to investigate whether preoperative frailty is associated with postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly orthopedic trauma patients.We conducted a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. All patients were ≥ 65 years of age and were admitted to the hospital between 01/01/2017 and 08/31/2018 for surgical intervention of a significant extremity fracture. Frailty was assessed using the fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness, and loss of weight questionnaire. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method. POD was defined as new-onset delirium that occurred within 24 h after surgery. To investigate whether frailty is associated with POD, we performed a multiple variable logistic regression, controlling for biologically relevant confounders.Five hundred fifty-six patients comprised the analytic cohort. Incidence of POD was 14% (n = 80). Multiple variable regression analysis demonstrated that each unit increment in FRAIL score was associated with a 33% higher likelihood of POD (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.02-1.72, p = 0.03).Our results suggest that preoperative frailty increases the risk of POD in hospitalized, elderly, orthopedic trauma patients. Future studies are needed to determine whether perioperative interventions focused on improving frailty can reduce the risk of POD and improve outcomes in this rapidly growing cohort of patients.

Introduction: Persistent misconceptions of frailty and dementia in geriatric patients impact physician-patient communication and leave patients vulnerable to disempowerment. Physicians may inappropriately focus the discussion of treatment options to health care proxies instead of patients. Our study explores the consenting process in a decision-making capable orthogeriatric trauma patient population to determine if there is a relationship between increased patient age and surgical consent by health care proxy. Methods: Patients aged 65 and older who underwent operative orthopaedic fracture fixation between 1 of 2 Level 1 Trauma Centers were retrospectively reviewed. Decision-making capable status was defined as an absence of patient history of cognitive impairment and a negative patient pre-surgical Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Mini-Cog Assessment screen. Provider of surgical consent was the main outcome and was determined by signature on the consent form. Results: 510 patients were included, and 276 (54.1%) patients were deemed capable of consent. In 27 (9.8%) of 276 decision-capable patients, physicians obtained consent from health care proxies. 20 of these 27 patients (74.1%) were 80 years of age or older. However, in patients aged 70 to 79, only 7 health care proxies provided consent. (p = 0.07). For every unit increase in age, the log odds of proxy consent increased by .0008 (p < 0.001). Age (p < 0.001), income level (p = 0.03), and physical presence of proxy at consult (p < 0.001) were factors associated with significantly increased utilization of health care proxy provided consent. Language other than English was a significant predictor of proxy-provided consent (p = 0.035). 48 (22%) decision-making incapable patients provided their own surgical consent. Discussion: The positive linear association between age and health care proxy provided consent in cognitively intact geriatric orthopaedic patients indicates that increased patient age impacts the consenting process. Increased physician vigilance and adoption of institutional consenting guidelines can reinforce appropriate respect of geriatric patients’ consenting capacity.

159 Background: Older adults with GI cancer often experience poor surgical outcomes, yet little is known about their PROs, such as physical function, quality of life (QOL), and physical and psychological symptom burden. Methods: As part of a randomized trial of perioperative geriatric care, we prospectively enrolled adults age ≥65 with GI cancer planning to undergo surgical resection. We asked patients preoperatively to self-report their physical function (activities of daily living [ADLs] and instrumental ADLs [IADLs]), QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS], scores > 3 considered moderate/severe [mod/sev]), depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale [GDS], scores > 4 represent a positive screen for depression), and comorbidities. We used regression models to explore relationships among PROs and clinical outcomes (receiving planned surgery, postoperative complications [Clavien-Dindo], hospital readmissions within 90 days, and survival). Results: From 9/2016 - 4/2019, we enrolled 160 of 221 (72.4%) patients approached (median age: 72, range: 65-92). At baseline, most (53.1%) reported at least one comorbidity and required assistance with ADLs (94.8%) and IADLs (52.3%). Patients reported an average of 2.56 mod/sev ESAS symptoms, and 27.7% screened positive for depression. For surgical outcomes, 137 patients (85.6%) underwent planned surgery, and 99 (72.2%) of these had at least one postoperative complication. Greater independence with ADLs was associated with undergoing planned surgery (OR = 1.21, P = .02), lower risk of complications (OR = 0.81, P < .01), and improved survival (HR = 0.87, P = .02), but not readmissions. Greater independence with IADLs was associated with undergoing planned surgery (OR = 1.30, P = .03) and improved survival (HR = 0.73, P < .01), but not other outcomes. Higher baseline QOL was only associated with lower risk of postoperative complications (OR = 0.97, P = .04). Higher depression scores were only associated with worse survival (HR = 1.13, P = .02). Higher baseline symptom burden predicted for shorter time to readmission (HR = 1.13, p = .03). Patient-reported number of comorbidities was associated with shorter time to readmission (HR = 1.49, p = .03) and higher risk of complications (OR = 1.70, P = .03). Conclusions: Older adults with GI cancer often have baseline functional limitations and a high symptom burden, all of which are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Future work should study whether addressing preoperative PROs could improve older patients’ surgical outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02810652 .

12012 Background: Older adults with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative (post-op) length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, and readmissions. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention in older adults with GI cancers undergoing surgery. Methods: We randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with GI cancers planning to undergo surgical resection to receive a perioperative geriatric intervention or usual care. Intervention patients met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and post-op as an inpatient consultant. The geriatrician conducted a geriatric assessment and made recommendations to the surgical/oncology teams. The primary end point was post-op LOS. Secondary end points included post-op ICU use, readmission risk, and patient-reported symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale). We conducted both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Results: From 9/13/16-4/30/19, we randomized 160 patients (72.4% enrollment rate; median age = 72 [65-92]). The ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). The PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received both pre- and post-op intervention components. In ITT analyses, we found no significant differences between intervention and usual care in post-op LOS (7.2 v 8.2 days, P = .37), ICU use (23.3% v 32.4%, p = .23), and readmission rates within 90 days of surgery (21.7% v 25.0%, p = .65). Intervention patients reported lower depression symptoms (B = -1.39, P < .01) at post-op day 5 and fewer moderate/severe ESAS symptoms at post-op day 60 (B = -1.09, P = .02). In PP analyses, intervention patients had significantly shorter post-op LOS (5.9 v 8.2 days, P = .02) and lower rates of post-op ICU use (13.3% v 32.4%, p < .05), but readmission rates were not significantly different (16.7% v 25.0%, p = .36). Conclusions: Although this perioperative geriatric intervention did not have a significant impact on the primary end point in ITT analysis, we found encouraging results in several secondary outcomes and for the subgroup of patients who received the planned intervention. Future studies of this perioperative geriatric intervention should include efforts, such as telehealth visits, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02810652 .

e24032 Background: Older adults with GI cancer often experience poor surgical outcomes, yet little is known about their PROs, such as physical function, quality of life (QOL), and physical and psychological symptom burden. Methods: As part of a randomized trial of perioperative geriatric care, we prospectively enrolled older adults with GI cancer planning to undergo surgical resection. We asked patients preoperatively to self-report their physical function (ability to perform activities of daily living [ADLs] and instrumental ADLs [IADLs], higher scores indicate better functioning), QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30, higher scores indicate better QOL), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS], higher scores indicate more severe symptoms, scores > 3 considered moderate/severe [mod/sev]), and depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale [GDS], higher scores indicate more severe symptoms, scores > 4 represent a positive screen for depression). We used regression models to identify patient characteristics associated with these PROs. We also explored relationships among PROs and surgical outcomes (receiving planned surgery, postoperative readmissions, and survival). Results: We enrolled 160 of 221 (72.4%) patients approached. A minority of patients were independent in all ADLs (5.2%) and IADLs (47.7%). Patients reported an average of 2.56 mod/sev ESAS symptoms, and 27.7% screened positive for depression, with 53.1% reporting at least one comorbidity. The number of comorbidities was significantly associated with impaired ADLs (B = -0.63, P < .01) and lower QOL (EORTC: B = -2.74, P = .03). For surgical outcomes, patients with better physical function were more likely to receive their planned surgery (ADLs: OR = 1.21, P = .02; IADLS: OR = 1.30, P = .03). Higher QOL correlated with greater odds of receiving planned surgery (EORTC: OR = 1.03, P = .06), but this did not reach statistical significance. A higher number of mod/sev ESAS symptoms was associated with greater postoperative readmission risk within 90 days of surgery (HR = 1.13, P = .03). Better physical function was associated with better postoperative survival (ADLs: HR = 0.87, P = .02; IADLs: HR = 0.73, P < .01), and higher depression scores correlated with worse survival (GDS: HR = 1.13, P = .02). Conclusions: Older adults with GI cancer often have baseline functional limitations and a high physical and psychological symptom burden, all of which are associated with worse surgical outcomes. Future work should study whether addressing preoperative PROs could improve older patients’ surgical outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02810652 .

11549 Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary geriatric intervention designed to address the geriatric (physical function & comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms & prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with cancer. Methods: We randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with newly diagnosed incurable gastrointestinal (GI) or lung cancer to receive a transdisciplinary geriatric intervention or usual care. Intervention patients received two visits with a geriatrician who was trained to address patients’ palliative care needs in addition to conducting a geriatric assessment. We defined the intervention as feasible if > 70% of patients enrolled in the study and > 75% completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients’ quality of life (QOL, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General), symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), and communication confidence (Perceived Efficacy in Patient Physician Interactions). As this was a pilot study, we calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES). Results: From 2/2017-6/2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age = 72.3 [range 65.2-91.8]; 45.2% female; cancer types: 56.5% GI, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 76.2% attended both. Overall, 77.8% completed all study surveys. Compared to usual care, intervention patients had less decrement in QOL scores (-0.77 vs -3.84, ES = .21), greater reduction in the number of moderate/severe symptoms (-0.69 vs +1.04, ES = .58), and more improvement in communication confidence (+1.06 vs -0.80, ES = .38). Conclusions: In this trial of older adults with advanced cancer, more than half enrolled in the study and over 75% of those who enrolled completed all study visits and surveys. Our effect size estimates suggest that a transdisciplinary intervention targeting patients’ geriatric and palliative care needs may be a promising approach to improve patients’ QOL, symptom burden, and communication confidence. Clinical trial information: NCT02868112.