4.1 Article

An Evaluation of the Prevalence and Severity of Pain and Other Symptoms in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 87-90

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2012.0248

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Heart failure is characterized by recurrent decompensations and persistent symptoms that decrease quality of life. Shortness of breath and fatigue are commonly identified symptoms but there is limited data on pain in heart failure patients. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was used to identify the prevalence and severity of pain and other symptoms experienced by patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that evaluated patients with a history of chronic heart failure admitted to the hospital with acute decompensated heart failure. A standardized questionnaire (ESAS) was administered to patients within 24 hours of hospital admission. Exclusion criteria included patients <18 years of age, admission for a noncardiac reason, active malignancy, history of chronic pain, outpatient chronic pain medication use, and those actively followed by the palliative care service. Results: One hundred patients, 67 males, with a mean age of 58 +/- 17 years were recruited. The mean ejection fraction (EF) was 37%+/- 18%. Sixty patients (60%) reported pain of any degree. Patients with lower EF (<= 40%, n = 61) reported significantly higher pain scores (4.1 +/- 3.6) compared to patients with higher EF (>40%, n = 36, 2.7 +/- 3.4, p < 0.05). Tiredness, shortness of breath, and decreased well-being were the most severe symptoms with mean scores of 6.3 +/- 2.8, 6.1 +/- 3.1, and 5.7 +/- 2.6, respectively. Conclusion: Pain is a common, underrecognized symptom in patients with chronic but acute decompensated heart failure. Decreased well-being, shortness of breath, and tiredness are the most common and severe symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure, regardless of ejection fraction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据