The effect of type of anaesthetic on delirium after surgery for acute hip fracture: An instrumental variable analysis to assess causation.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anna-Marie G Tanios, Emily L Gallagher, Michael S McManus, John A Riordan, Ian A Harris, Lara A Harvey
{"title":"The effect of type of anaesthetic on delirium after surgery for acute hip fracture: An instrumental variable analysis to assess causation.","authors":"Anna-Marie G Tanios, Emily L Gallagher, Michael S McManus, John A Riordan, Ian A Harris, Lara A Harvey","doi":"10.1177/0310057X241275116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Delirium is the most common in-hospital complication affecting older adults with acute hip fractures. Current evidence demonstrates inconsistent associations between anaesthetic type for acute hip fracture surgery and postoperative delirium. Using the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 50 years and over who underwent acute hip fracture surgery between 2015 and 2020. The incidence of delirium in patients who received general anaesthesia alone or combined with a regional technique, versus those who received spinal or regional anaesthesia was assessed. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression was used to test associations between anaesthetic type and delirium controlling for known confounders. Finally, given hospital variation in preference for anaesthetic type, an instrumental variable analysis was performed to include the effect of both known and unknown confounding. Of 35,252 patients, 25,682 (72.9%) patients received general anaesthesia, and 9570 (27.2%) patients received spinal or regional anaesthesia for their hip fracture surgery. A higher proportion of patients who received general anaesthesia developed delirium than those who received spinal or regional anaesthesia (40.6% vs. 35.7%, odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.18 to 1.30, <i>P</i> < 0.0001). After adjusting for known confounders, general anaesthesia patients were at slightly increased odds of developing delirium (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, <i>P</i> = 0.0052). However, the instrumental variable analysis found no statistically significant difference between groups (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07, <i>P</i> = 0.141). Therefore, while a weak association was found between general anaesthesia exposure and postoperative delirium, an instrumental variable analysis to compensate for unmeasured confounding showed no causal association between general anaesthesia and postoperative delirium.</p>","PeriodicalId":7746,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":" ","pages":"310057X241275116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X241275116","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Delirium is the most common in-hospital complication affecting older adults with acute hip fractures. Current evidence demonstrates inconsistent associations between anaesthetic type for acute hip fracture surgery and postoperative delirium. Using the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 50 years and over who underwent acute hip fracture surgery between 2015 and 2020. The incidence of delirium in patients who received general anaesthesia alone or combined with a regional technique, versus those who received spinal or regional anaesthesia was assessed. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression was used to test associations between anaesthetic type and delirium controlling for known confounders. Finally, given hospital variation in preference for anaesthetic type, an instrumental variable analysis was performed to include the effect of both known and unknown confounding. Of 35,252 patients, 25,682 (72.9%) patients received general anaesthesia, and 9570 (27.2%) patients received spinal or regional anaesthesia for their hip fracture surgery. A higher proportion of patients who received general anaesthesia developed delirium than those who received spinal or regional anaesthesia (40.6% vs. 35.7%, odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.18 to 1.30, P < 0.0001). After adjusting for known confounders, general anaesthesia patients were at slightly increased odds of developing delirium (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, P = 0.0052). However, the instrumental variable analysis found no statistically significant difference between groups (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07, P = 0.141). Therefore, while a weak association was found between general anaesthesia exposure and postoperative delirium, an instrumental variable analysis to compensate for unmeasured confounding showed no causal association between general anaesthesia and postoperative delirium.

麻醉类型对急性髋部骨折术后谵妄的影响:一种评估因果关系的工具变量分析。
谵妄是影响老年人急性髋部骨折最常见的住院并发症。目前的证据表明急性髋部骨折手术麻醉类型与术后谵妄之间存在不一致的关联。使用澳大利亚和新西兰髋部骨折登记数据库,我们对2015年至2020年间接受急性髋部骨折手术的50岁及以上患者进行了回顾性队列研究。评估单独接受全麻或联合局部麻醉的患者与接受脊髓或局部麻醉的患者谵妄的发生率。在控制已知混杂因素的情况下,采用多变量多水平逻辑回归来检验麻醉类型与谵妄之间的关系。最后,考虑到医院对麻醉类型的偏好差异,进行了工具变量分析,以包括已知和未知混杂因素的影响。在35,252例患者中,25,682例(72.9%)患者接受全身麻醉,9570例(27.2%)患者接受脊柱或区域麻醉。接受全身麻醉的患者发生谵妄的比例高于接受脊髓或区域麻醉的患者(40.6% vs. 35.7%,优势比(or) 1.23, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.18 ~ 1.30, P = 0.0052)。然而,工具变量分析发现两组间无统计学差异(OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 ~ 1.07, P = 0.141)。因此,虽然发现全身麻醉暴露与术后谵妄之间存在弱关联,但为了弥补未测量的混杂因素,工具变量分析显示全身麻醉与术后谵妄之间没有因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
150
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia and Intensive Care is an international journal publishing timely, peer reviewed articles that have educational value and scientific merit for clinicians and researchers associated with anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, and pain medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信