Advertisement

Multiple simultaneous fractures are associated with higher all-cause mortality: results from a province-wide fracture liaison service

  • R. SujicEmail author
  • J. Luo
  • D.E. Beaton
  • E.R. Bogoch
  • J.E.M. Sale
  • S. Jaglal
  • R. Jain
  • M. Mamdani
  • the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention Program Evaluation Team
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Mortality rates in our fracture liaison service ranged from 2.7% at year 1 to 14.8% at year 5 post-screening. Presentation with multiple simultaneous fractures at screening was associated with higher risk of death. This finding indicates the need for increased focus on this high-risk group.

Purpose

To examine all-cause mortality rates in a provincial fracture liaison service (FLS) and the association between the index fracture type, particularly multiple simultaneous fractures, and the risk of death at follow-up.

Methods

This cohort study includes fragility fracture patients aged 50+, enrolled in a provincial FLS in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2010. All-cause mortality was assessed using administrative data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the risk of death 5 years after screening.

Results

Crude mortality rates for 6543 fragility fracture patients were 2.7% at year 1, 5.6% at year 2, and 14.8% at year 5 after screening. After adjusting for age and sex, and relative to distal radius fracture, patients with multiple (simultaneous) fractures at screening had a higher risk of dying (HR = 1.8, 95%CI 1.3–2.4), followed by those with a hip fracture (HR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3–1.8), a proximal humerus fracture (HR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.2–1.7), and other single fractures (HR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.1–1.7). Having an index ankle fracture was not associated with the risk of death over a distal radius fracture. As compared to the 50–65 age group, patients 66 years and older had a higher risk of death (for 66–70 age group: HR = 2.5, 95%CI 1.9–3.3; for 71–80: HR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.5–5.4; and for 81+: HR = 10.6, 95%CI 8.7–13.0). Females had a lower risk of death (HR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.5–0.6) than males.

Conclusions

Presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of higher risk of death relative to a distal radius fracture. This finding indicates the need for increased focus on this high-risk group.

Keywords

Fracture liaison service Fragility fracture Mortality rates Multiple fractures Risk of death 

Notes

Funding information

This project was supported by funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) through the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy. The views expressed are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect those of the MOHLTC. This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The opinions, results and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred. The data used in this study were linked using unique encoded identifiers and analyzed at ICES Central. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Osteoporosis Canada and the Fracture Screening and Prevention Program Evaluation Team for their overall evaluation of the program.

Compliance with ethical standards

This project received a Research Ethics Board (REB) approval of the principal investigators’ home institution St. Michael’s hospital, Toronto (REB#08-304), the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto REB, and approvals from each fracture clinic’s REB for research use of patients’ data.

Conflict of interest

Rebeka Sujic, Jin Luo, Dorcas E Beaton, Joanna EM Sale, Susan Jaglal, and Ravi Jain declare that they have no conflict of interest. Earl R Bogoch received an unrestricted research grant and speaker fees from Amgen Canada Inc, and is an Editorial Board member for the Journal of Rheumatology. Muhammad Mamdani received Honoraria and served as a consultant/advisory board of Novo Nordisk, Allergan, and Amgen.

References

  1. 1.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15:721–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR (2009) Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA 301:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Sernbo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Petterson C, De Laet C, Jonsson B (2004) Fracture risk following an osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marsh D, Akesson K, Beaton DE et al (2011) Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22:2051–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell PJ (2013) Best practices in secondary fracture prevention: fracture liaison services. Curr Osteoporos Rep 11:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisman JA, Bogoch ER, Dell R et al (2012) Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. J Bone Miner Res 27:2039–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center JR, Eisman JA, March L, Seibel MJ (2013) Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 24:393–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, Kyer C, Cooper C, Group IOFFW (2013) Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24:2135–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amphansap T, Stitkitti N, Dumrongwanich P (2016) Evaluation of Police General Hospital’s Fracture Liaison Service (PGH’s FLS): the first study of a Fracture Liaison Service in Thailand. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 2:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Astrand J, Nilsson J, Thorngren KG (2012) Screening for osteoporosis reduced new fracture incidence by almost half: a 6-year follow-up of 592 fracture patients from an osteoporosis screening program. Acta Orthop 83:661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aubry-Rozier B, Stoll D, Gonzalez Rodriguez E, Hans D, Prudent V, Seuret A, Farron A, Lamy O (2018) Impact of a fracture liaison service on patient management after an osteoporotic fracture: the CHUV FLS. Swiss Med Wkly 148:w14579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Axelsson KF, Jacobsson R, Lund D, Lorentzon M (2016) Effectiveness of a minimal resource fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int 27:3165–3175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawley S, Javaid MK, Prieto-Alhambra D, Lippett J, Sheard S, Arden NK, Cooper C, Judge A, group REs (2016) Clinical effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: population-based longitudinal study. Age Ageing 45:236-242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson CY, Shanahan E, Butler A, Lenehan B, O’Connor M, Lyons D, Ryan JP (2017) Dedicated orthogeriatric service reduces hip fracture mortality. Ir J Med Sci 186:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huntjens KM, van Geel TA, van den Bergh JP, van Helden S, Willems P, Winkens B, Eisman JA, Geusens PP, Brink PR (2014) Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:e29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huntjens KM, van Geel TC, Geusens PP, Winkens B, Willems P, van den Bergh J, Brink PR, van Helden S (2011) Impact of guideline implementation by a fracture nurse on subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures. Injury 42(Suppl 4):S39–S43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakayama A, Major G, Holliday E, Attia J, Bogduk N (2016) Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporos Int 27:873–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruggiero C, Zampi E, Rinonapoli G, Baroni M, Serra R, Zengarini E, Baglioni G, Duranti G, Ercolani S, Conti F, Caraffa A, Mecocci P, Brandi ML (2015) Fracture prevention service to bridge the osteoporosis care gap. Clin Interv Aging 10:1035–1042PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van der Kallen J, Giles M, Cooper K, Gill K, Parker V, Tembo A, Major G, Ross L, Carter J (2014) A fracture prevention service reduces further fractures two years after incident minimal trauma fracture. Int J Rheum Dis 17:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Geel T, Bliuc D, Geusens PPM, Center JR, Dinant GJ, Tran T, van den Bergh JPW, McLellan AR, Eisman JA (2018) Reduced mortality and subsequent fracture risk associated with oral bisphosphonate recommendation in a fracture liaison service setting: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One 13:e0198006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vidan M, Serra JA, Moreno C, Riquelme G, Ortiz J (2005) Efficacy of a comprehensive geriatric intervention in older patients hospitalized for hip fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:1476–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beaton DE, Vidmar M, Pitzul KB, Sujic R, Rotondi NK, Bogoch ER, Sale JEM, Jain R, Weldon J (2017) Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator’s role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program. Osteoporos Int 28:863–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huntjens KM, Kosar S, van Geel TA, Geusens PP, Willems P, Kessels A, Winkens B, Brink P, van Helden S (2010) Risk of subsequent fracture and mortality within 5 years after a non-vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 21:2075–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Center JR, Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA (2011) Osteoporosis medication and reduced mortality risk in elderly women and men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:1006–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Sujic
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Luo
    • 2
  • D.E. Beaton
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • E.R. Bogoch
    • 5
    • 6
  • J.E.M. Sale
    • 1
    • 3
  • S. Jaglal
    • 2
    • 7
    • 8
  • R. Jain
    • 9
  • M. Mamdani
    • 2
    • 3
    • 10
  • the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention Program Evaluation Team
  1. 1.Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes ResearchLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.ICESTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Institute of Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Mobility ProgramSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Toronto Rehabilitation Institute – University Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Department of Physical TherapyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  9. 9.Ontario Osteoporosis StrategyOsteoporosis CanadaTorontoCanada
  10. 10.Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research & TrainingLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations