Dementia risk amongst older adults with hip fracture receiving general anaesthesia or regional anaesthesia: a propensity-score-matched population-based cohort study
British Journal of Anaesthesia, ISSN: 0007-0912, Vol: 130, Issue: 3, Page: 305-313
2023
- 22Citations
- 22Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations22
- Citation Indexes22
- 22
- CrossRef10
- Captures22
- Readers22
- 22
Article Description
Preclinical studies have indicated that anaesthesia is an independent risk factor for dementia, but the clinical associations between dementia and different types of general anaesthesia or regional anaesthesia remain unclear. We conducted a population-based cohort study using propensity-score matching to compare dementia incidence in patients included in the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Research Database who received various anaesthetic types for hip fracture surgery. Patients aged ≥65 yr who received elective hip fracture surgery from 2002 to 2019 were divided into three groups receiving either inhalational anaesthesia (GA), total intravenous anaesthesia–general anaesthesia (TIVA-GA), or regional anaesthesia (RA), and matched in a 1:1 ratio. The incidence rates of dementia were then determined. Propensity-score matching yielded 89 338 patients in each group ( N =268 014). Dementia incidence rates in the inhalational GA, TIVA–GA, and RA groups were 4821, 3400, and 2692 per 100 000 person-years, respectively. The dementia incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for inhalational GA to TIVA–GA was 1.19 (1.14–1.25), for inhalational GA to RA was 1.51 (1.15–1.66), and for TIVA–GA to RA was 1.28 (1.09–1.51). The incidence rate ratios of dementia amongst older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery were higher for those receiving general anaesthesia than for those receiving regional anaesthesia, with inhalational anaesthesia associated with a higher incidence rate ratio for dementia than total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA).
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091222006511; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.11.014; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85145703817&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36593163; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091222006511; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.11.014
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know