BackgroundFrailty is a geriatric condition that is associated with an increased risk of mortality and functional decline. To date, mainly the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Hospital Safety Management (VeiligheidsManagementSysteem [VMS]) frailty score are used to determine frailty in several hospitals in the Netherlands. However, it is yet unknown, which method has the best predictive value on clinical outcomes.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the predictive value of GFI and VMS on clinical outcomes among patients who underwent hip fracture surgery.DesignThis is a prospective observational cohort study.MethodsWe selected all patients aged 70 years or higher, who underwent hip fracture surgery in our general hospital, between November 2014 and November 2015. Among all patients, VMS, GFI and Barthel-20 index (BI) were assessed. McNemar’s paired test and Cohen’s κ were used to examine the difference and the level of agreement between the two scoring methods. Kaplan–Meier and multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine overall survival and mortality, respectively, 3 years and 30 days after surgery.ResultsA total of 280 patients were included in the study. The median follow-up was 25 months. No systematic difference was found between the two methods (P=0.237), while a fair level of agreement could be measured (κ=0.363 [95% CI =0.23–50]). VMS showed a statistically significant difference in overall survival as compared to nonfrail patients (57 vs 80%, respectively [Plogrank <0.001] with an HR of 3.5 [95% CI =2.1–5.7; P<0.001]). Classification according to GFI yielded a lower but still significant HR 2.3 (95% CI =1.2–4.1; P=0.008).ConclusionVMS can be used in classifying frailty, whereby VMS frailty score is associated with clinical outcomes as overall survival mortality in older patients with hip fracture and who underwent surgery.

this IPD meta-analysis of prospective observational studies showed a clear and significant relationship between OH and time to first fall incident. Although the ORs of falling was not significantly different for patients with and without OH, a the cox regression analyses reporting HRs and including time to incident provided more clinically relevant information in present meta-analysis.

As many elderly patients are not able to stand for several minutes, sitting orthostatic blood pressure (BP) measurements are sometimes used as an alternative. We aimed to investigate the difference in BP response and orthostatic hypotension (OH) prevalence between the standard postural change to the sitting and the standing position in a cross-sectional observational study. BP was measured with a continuous BP measurement device during two postural changes, from supine to the sitting and from supine to the standing position. Linear mixed models were used to investigate the differences in changes (Δ) of systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between the two postural changes. The prevalence and the positive and negative proportions of agreement of OH were calculated of the two postural changes. One hundred and four patients with a mean age of 69 years were included. ΔSBP was significantly larger in the standing position compared with the sitting between 0 and 44 s. ΔDBP was significantly larger in the sitting position compared with the standing 75-224 s after postural change. The prevalence of OH was 66.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57.2, 75.4) in the standing position and 67.3% (95% CI 58.3, 76.3) in the sitting position. The positive proportion of agreement was 74.8% and the negative proportion of agreement was 49.3%. A clear difference was seen in BP response between the two postural changes. Although no significant difference in prevalence of OH was observed, the positive and negative proportion of agreement of the prevalence of OH were poor to moderate, which indicates a different outcome between both postural changes.

No abstract

Background. Aim was to investigate whether the degree of patient activation of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is different between men and women. Furthermore, we investigated which factors are associated with patient activation in men and women. Methods. This cross-sectional study included 1615 patients with T2D from general practices. Patient activation was measured with the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression analyses were used to investigate the association between gender and patient activation. Stratified analyses according to gender were performed to investigate which factors are associated with patient activation. Results. No association between gender and PAM score was found after adjustment for all selected confounders (p = 0.094). In men, lower age (p = 0.001), a higher WHO-5 score (p < 0.001), and a lower BMI (p = 0.013) were associated with a higher PAM score. In women, a higher WHO-5 score (p < 0.017) and the absence of macrovascular complications (p < 0.031) were associated with a higher PAM score. Conclusion. There is no difference in the degree of patient activation of men and women with T2D. Age, well-being, and BMI were found to be associated with patient activation in men, whereas well-being and macrovascular complications were found to be associated with patient activation in women.