Does the ASA grading influence the outcomes of best practice tariff in fracture neck of femurs.

Aysha Rajeev, Mohammed Ali, Liam Mcentee, Kailash Devalia
{"title":"Does the ASA grading influence the outcomes of best practice tariff in fracture neck of femurs.","authors":"Aysha Rajeev,&nbsp;Mohammed Ali,&nbsp;Liam Mcentee,&nbsp;Kailash Devalia","doi":"10.22540/JFSF-06-147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to find the significance of different ASA grades in achieving the Best Practice Tariff (BPT) and their outcomes in patients with fracture neck of femur.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study over a five years period. Patient demographics, ASA grading, hospital admission timing, time to theatre and discharge date were recorded. The 30 day mortality rate and length of stay were calculated for each ASA grades for patients who met and failed BPT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1798 patients were included in the study. 54% was ASA grade 3, grade 4 represented 22% and grade 2, 19%. The mean AMT score was 6.4 who met BPT and 4.4 who failed BPT (p<0.001). 319 patients with ASA≤2 met BPT and 53 patients failed to meet BPT. In ASA ≥3, 1200 patients who met BPT and 225 patients failed BPT. The 30-day mortality in patients with ASA≤2 who met BPT was 2.57% and those who failed were 1.92%. In ASA ≥3 the 30-day mortality was 12.63% and who failed BPT was 25% which is statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with ASA≥3 the 30-day mortality is significantly higher in those who failed BPT compared to ASA≤2 patients whether they achieved BPT or not.</p>","PeriodicalId":73754,"journal":{"name":"Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls","volume":"6 3","pages":"147-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a0/05/JFSF-6-147.PMC8419854.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22540/JFSF-06-147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to find the significance of different ASA grades in achieving the Best Practice Tariff (BPT) and their outcomes in patients with fracture neck of femur.

Methods: A retrospective study over a five years period. Patient demographics, ASA grading, hospital admission timing, time to theatre and discharge date were recorded. The 30 day mortality rate and length of stay were calculated for each ASA grades for patients who met and failed BPT.

Results: 1798 patients were included in the study. 54% was ASA grade 3, grade 4 represented 22% and grade 2, 19%. The mean AMT score was 6.4 who met BPT and 4.4 who failed BPT (p<0.001). 319 patients with ASA≤2 met BPT and 53 patients failed to meet BPT. In ASA ≥3, 1200 patients who met BPT and 225 patients failed BPT. The 30-day mortality in patients with ASA≤2 who met BPT was 2.57% and those who failed were 1.92%. In ASA ≥3 the 30-day mortality was 12.63% and who failed BPT was 25% which is statistically significant.

Conclusion: In patients with ASA≥3 the 30-day mortality is significantly higher in those who failed BPT compared to ASA≤2 patients whether they achieved BPT or not.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

ASA分级是否影响股骨颈骨折的最佳实践评定结果?
目的:本研究的目的是发现不同ASA等级对股骨颈骨折患者实现最佳实践标准(BPT)及其预后的意义。方法:回顾性研究5年。记录患者人口统计资料、ASA分级、住院时间、住院时间和出院日期。计算满足和失败BPT的患者的每个ASA等级的30天死亡率和住院时间。结果:1798例患者纳入研究。ASA 3级占54%,4级占22%,2级占19%。达到BPT的患者平均AMT评分为6.4分,BPT失败的患者平均AMT评分为4.4分。结论:无论是否达到BPT, ASA≥3的患者,BPT失败的患者30天死亡率均显著高于ASA≤2的患者。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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