关键词: Denmark LIMPRINT chronic oedema lymphedema prevalence primary Lymphoedema secondary Lymphoedema

Mesh : Aged Aged, 80 and over Body Mass Index Chronic Disease Comorbidity Denmark / epidemiology Diagnosis, Differential Edema / diagnosis epidemiology pathology physiopathology Female Heart Failure / diagnosis epidemiology pathology physiopathology Humans Inpatients Lower Extremity / pathology physiopathology Lymphatic System / pathology physiopathology Lymphedema / diagnosis epidemiology pathology physiopathology Male Middle Aged Myocardial Ischemia / diagnosis epidemiology pathology physiopathology Prevalence Primary Health Care Quality of Life / psychology

来  源:   DOI:10.1089/lrb.2019.0019   PDF(Sci-hub)   PDF(Pubmed)

Abstract:
Background: The International Lymphedema Framework developed an international study, Lymphedema Impact and Prevalence International (LIMPRINT), to estimate the prevalence and impact of chronic edema (CO) in heterogeneous populations. Methods and Results: A validation study using the LIMPRINT methodology was undertaken in Denmark. Participants with CO were identified from inpatient services and compared with those identified within a specialist lymphedema service and three primary care settings. Of 452 inpatients available for screening, CO was present in 177 (39%) and absent in 275 (61%). In addition, 723 participants were found from specialist and primary care services (LPCSs). Inpatients were significantly older and more likely to be underweight or normal weight. They were more likely to suffer from heart failure/ischaemic heart disease (44.6% vs. 23.4%, p < 0.001) and have neurological problems (18.1% vs. 10.9% p = 0.009). Patients in the inpatient group were nearly all suffering from secondary lymphedema and were less likely to have a cancer or venous diagnosis, but more likely to have immobility as the cause of CO (44.0% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001). No inpatients had midline CO compared with 30 within LPCSs. Fewer in the inpatient group had standard CO treatment (17.1% vs. 73.5%, p < 0.001) and subjective control of swelling was worse (19.9% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001). While the inpatient group experienced fewer acute infections, when they did so, they were more likely to be admitted to hospital for this (78.6% vs. 51.0%, p = 0.049). Conclusion: The prevalence of CO in inpatient facilities is high and those with CO have multiple comorbidities that vary according to setting. The feasibility study showed that the methodology could be adapted for use in different health systems.
摘要:
暂无翻译
公众号