16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture (REGAIN): protocol for a pragmatic, international multicentre trial

      protocol
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 5 , 8
      (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab), (Collab)
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      ANAESTHETICS, GERIATRIC MEDICINE

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Hip fractures occur 1.6 million times each year worldwide, with substantial associated mortality and losses of independence. At present, anaesthesia care for hip fracture surgery varies widely within and between countries, with general anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia representing the 2 most common approaches. Limited randomised evidence exists regarding potential short-term or long-term differences in outcomes between patients receiving spinal or general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

          Methods

          The REGAIN trial (Regional vs General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) is an international, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. 1600 previously ambulatory patients aged 50 and older will be randomly allocated to receive either general or spinal anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. The primary outcome is a composite of death or new inability to walk 10 feet or across a room at 60 days after randomisation, which will be assessed via telephone interview by staff who are blinded to treatment assignment. Secondary outcomes will be assessed by in-person assessment and medical record review for in-hospital end points (delirium; major inpatient medical complications and mortality; acute postoperative pain; patient satisfaction; length of stay) and by telephone interview for 60-day, 180-day and 365-day end points (mortality; disability-free survival; chronic pain; return to the prefracture residence; need for new assistive devices for ambulation; cognitive impairment).

          Ethics and dissemination

          The REGAIN trial has been approved by the ethics boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016 and will continue until the end of 2019. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets.

          Trial registration number

          NCT02507505, Pre-results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validity and reliability of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale: study with intravenous midazolam.

          The Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) Scale was developed to measure the level of alertness in subjects who are sedated. This scale was tested in 18 subjects in a three-period crossover study to assess its reliability and its criterion, behavioral, and construct validity. After receiving either placebo or a titrated dose of midazolam to produce light or heavy sedation, each subject was administered two sedation scales (OAA/S Scale and a Visual Analogue Scale) and two performances tests (Digit Symbol Substitution Test and Serial Sevens Subtraction). Two raters individually evaluated the subject's level of alertness on each of the two sedation scales. The results obtained on the OAA/S Scale were reliable and valid as measured by high correlations between the two raters and high correlations between the OAA/S Scale and two of the three standard tests used in this study. The OAA/S Scale was sensitive to the level of midazolam administered; all pairwise comparisons were significant (p less than 0.05) for all three treatment levels at both test periods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs.

            To estimate lifetime morbidity, mortality, and costs from hip fracture incorporating the effect of deficits in activities of daily living. Markov computer cohort simulation considering short- and long-term outcomes attributable to hip fractures. Data estimates were based on published literature, and costs were based primarily on Medicare reimbursement rates. Postacute hospital facility. Eighty-year-old community dwellers with hip fractures. Life expectancy, nursing facility days, and costs. Hip fracture reduced life expectancy by 1.8 years or 25% compared with an age- and sex-matched general population. About 17% of remaining life was spent in a nursing facility. The lifetime attributable cost of hip fracture was $81,300, of which nearly half (44%) related to nursing facility expenses. The development of deficits in ADLs after hip fracture resulted in substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. Hip fractures result in significant mortality, morbidity, and costs. The estimated lifetime cost for all hip fractures in the United States in 1997 likely exceeded $20 billion. These results emphasize the importance of current and future interventions to decrease the incidence of hip fracture.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              3D-CAM: derivation and validation of a 3-minute diagnostic interview for CAM-defined delirium: a cross-sectional diagnostic test study.

              Delirium is common, leads to other adverse outcomes, and is costly. However, it often remains unrecognized in most clinical settings. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is the most widely used diagnostic algorithm, and operationalizing its features would be a substantial advance for clinical care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                15 November 2016
                : 6
                : 11
                : e013473
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [2 ]Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, The University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [3 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [4 ]Center for Perioperative Outcomes Research and Transformation (CPORT), University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [5 ]Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [6 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center , Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                [7 ]Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine , Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School , New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Mark D Neuman; neumanm@ 123456mail.med.upenn.edu
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-013473
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013473
                5129073
                27852723
                5ee8886d-8eb9-4c92-9bb2-4cd9e9676327
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 13 July 2016
                : 6 September 2016
                : 15 September 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006093;
                Award ID: PCS 1406-18876
                Categories
                Anaesthesia
                Protocol
                1506
                1682
                1698
                1737

                Medicine
                anaesthetics,geriatric medicine
                Medicine
                anaesthetics, geriatric medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article