4.5 Article

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Chronic Venous Disease in the General Russian Population

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.08.033

关键词

Chronic venous disease; Epidemiology; Risk factor; Varicose veins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective/Background: The aim was to establish the prevalence of chronic venous disease (CVD) and its risk factors in the general population. Methods: This was a population based, cross sectional study. In total, 703 residents aged > 18 years from the rural community of Kryukovo (Central Russia) were enrolled. Medical history was taken and clinical examination performed, documenting venous signs/symptoms. The CEAP classification of the most affected limb was used. Duplex ultrasound was performed to register morphological changes and reflux in deep and superficial veins. Results: There were 63% women and 37% men (mean age 53.5 years). CVD was found in 69.3%. Of all participants 4.7% were C0S and 34.3% were C1. Chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) was found in 8.2% and venous ulcers (C5-C6) in 1.1%. Venous pain, heaviness, fatigue, itching, and the sensation of swelling were documented in 14.8%, 36.3%, 32.8%, 7.0% and 29.1% of patients respectively. Family history was the significant risk factor for both CVD (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3) and primary varicose vein disease (HR 1.6; p < .01). Female sex was a risk factor only for CVD (HR 1.3; p < .01) but not for varicose veins. Age was a risk factor for CVD (HR 1.01) and for varicose veins (HR 1.02; p < .01). For women, number of births (HR 1.05; p < .05) and menopause (HR 1.3; p < .01) were risk factors for CVD. Menopause was a risk factor for varicose veins (HR 2.0; p < .05). Conclusion: This study provides data on the prevalence of CVD, venous abnormalities and risk factors in Russia. The results contribute to already established data, giving a more complete outlook on the global prevalence of CVD. (C) 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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