4.5 Article

Survival and life-expectancy in a young-onset dementia cohort with six years of follow-up: the NeedYD-study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 1781-1789

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610219000152

关键词

Young Onset Dementia; Dementia; Long-Term Care

资金

  1. Dutch Alzheimer's Foundation, Bunnik in the Netherlands
  2. Wever Care Group, Tilburg in the Netherlands
  3. Florence Care Group, the Hague in the Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate survival time and life-expectancy in people with young-onset dementia (YOD) and to examine the relationship with age, sex, dementia subtype and comorbidity. Design, Setting and Participants: Survival was examined in 198 participants in the Needs in Young-onset Dementia study, including participants with Alzheimer's dementia (AD), vascular dementia (VaD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Measures: The primary outcomes were survival time after symptom onset and after date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore the relationship between survival and age, sex, dementia subtype and comorbidity. Additionally, the impact on remaining life expectancy was explored. Results: During the six-year follow-up, 77 of the participants died (38.9%), 78 participants survived (39.4%) and 43 were lost to follow-up (21.7%). The mean survival time after symptom onset and diagnosis was 209 months (95% CI 185-233) and 120 months (95% CI 110-130) respectively. Participants with AD had a statistically significant shorter survival compared with VaD participants, both regarding survival after symptom onset (p = 0.047) as well as regarding survival after diagnosis (p = 0.049). Younger age at symptom onset or at diagnosis was associated with longer survival times. The remaining life expectancy, after diagnosis, was reduced with 51% for males and 59% for females compared to the life expectancy of the general population in the same age groups.

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

4.5
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