LIMPRINT: Prevalence of chronic edema in health services in copenhagen, Denmark
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
LIMPRINT : Prevalence of chronic edema in health services in copenhagen, Denmark. / Nørregaard, Susan; Bermark, Susan; Karlsmark, Tonny; Franks, Peter J.; Murray, Susie; Moffatt, Christine J.
In: Lymphatic Research and Biology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2019, p. 187-194.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - LIMPRINT
T2 - Prevalence of chronic edema in health services in copenhagen, Denmark
AU - Nørregaard, Susan
AU - Bermark, Susan
AU - Karlsmark, Tonny
AU - Franks, Peter J.
AU - Murray, Susie
AU - Moffatt, Christine J.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - chronic oedema
KW - Denmark
KW - LIMPRINT
KW - lymphedema
KW - prevalence
KW - primary Lymphoedema
KW - secondary Lymphoedema
U2 - 10.1089/lrb.2019.0019
DO - 10.1089/lrb.2019.0019
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 30995193
AN - SCOPUS:85064679982
VL - 17
SP - 187
EP - 194
JO - Lymphatic Research and Biology
JF - Lymphatic Research and Biology
SN - 1539-6851
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 241210615