4.5 Article

Survival in the Three Common Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Retrospective Study in a Tertiary Memory Clinic

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11091113

关键词

primary progressive aphasia; natural history; mortality; survival; memory clinic

资金

  1. La Chaire de Recherche sur les Aphasies Primaires Progressives-Fondation de la famille Lemaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found significant differences in survival between the three variants of PPA, with svPPA showing the longest survival time and nfvPPA having more neurological-related causes of death.
Knowledge on the natural history of the three main variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is lacking, particularly regarding mortality. Moreover, advanced stages and end of life issues are rarely discussed with caregivers and families at diagnosis, which can cause more psychological distress. We analyzed data from 83 deceased patients with a diagnosis of PPA. We studied survival in patients with a diagnosis of logopenic variant (lvPPA), semantic variant (svPPA), or non-fluent variant (nfvPPA) and examined causes of death. From medical records, we retrospectively collected data for each patient at several time points spanning five years before the first visit to death. When possible, interviews were performed with proxies of patients to complete missing data. Results showed that survival from symptom onset and diagnosis was significantly longer in svPPA than in lvPPA (p = 0.002) and nfvPPA (p < 0.001). No relevant confounders were associated with survival. Mean survival from symptom onset was 7.6 years for lvPPA, 7.1 years for nfvPPA, and 12 years for svPPA. The most common causes of death were natural cardio-pulmonary arrest and pneumonia. Aspiration pneumonia represented 23% of deaths in nfvPPA. In conclusion, this pilot study found significant differences in survival between the three variants of PPA with svPPA showing the longest and nfvPPA showing more neurologically-related causes of death.

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