Discussion
edema, NPCD, BCRL
EDEMA
The results indicate that the clinical and QOL benefits of the NPCD observed in the original RCT are replicated within the subgroup of subjects ≥65. Specifically, the NPCD resulted in significantly greater edema reduction and improvements in LYMQOL scores within this subset. In addition, subjects were significantly more adherent to the NPCD than to the APCD, and indicated that the NPCD facilitated exercise and was convenient for travel.Subjects used the NPCD for almost twice as long per day than the APCD, on average. Although speculative, this could reflect the fact that the NPCD is more comfortable and conducive to prolonged wear. Although the sequential compression mechanisms employed by the two devices are similar, the NPCD also provides a base static compression that is not available with APCD and allows movement/mobility during use. Although the improvements in edema reduction are correlated to the frequency and duration of use, the additional mechanism of static compression and mobility/movement could have further aided in the improvement observed.In addition to greater mobility, subjects indicated that the NPCD facilitated exercise, which has been linked to better outcomes in BCRL patients.In addition, the novelty of the NPCD may have been attractive for some patients, which could have resulted in higher adherence over the study period. The original study was not powered for a subanalysis, and the results should be viewed with caution, given that the sample size is 14. Finally, we did not adjust our threshold for statistical significance to account for multiple comparisons; however, many of the 