Call for a Disease-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Tool in Adult Congenital Heart Disease
2014; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 7; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circoutcomes.114.001406
ISSN1941-7705
Autores Tópico(s)Cardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
ResumoHomeCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesVol. 7, No. 6Call for a Disease-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Tool in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBCall for a Disease-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Tool in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Ari M. Cedars, MD and John A. Spertus, MD, MPH Ari M. CedarsAri M. Cedars From the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine/Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis, MO (A.M.C.); and Division of Cardiovascular Research at Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute and the Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics for UMKC, University of Missouri Kansas City/Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (J.A.S.). and John A. SpertusJohn A. Spertus From the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine/Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis, MO (A.M.C.); and Division of Cardiovascular Research at Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute and the Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics for UMKC, University of Missouri Kansas City/Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (J.A.S.). Originally published14 Oct 2014https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001406Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2014;7:971–974Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2014: Previous Version 1 Those who care for patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) need a valid and sensitive measure to better quantify the effect of ACHD on patients' health status, their symptoms, function, and quality of life (QOL). These insights are critical in evaluating the success of novel treatments, monitoring patients over time, and comparing treatment success across providers as a foundation for quality improvement.1 Given the unique and myriad manifestations of various forms of ACHD, generic QOL measures are likely inadequate and the time has come to create an ACHD-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool.The prevalence of ACHD is expanding rapidly in the developed world. As a result of medical and surgical advances over the last half century, patients who previously would have succumbed to their cardiac abnormality in early childhood now live well into adulthood.2,3 Currently, it is estimated that there are more adults living in the United States with congenital heart disease than there are children.4 Although medical and surgical advances have led to dramatic improvements in survival, these patients are not cured and live with various limitations and symptoms that require ongoing monitoring and treatment.The growth of this unique population of patients with chronic heart disease creates a need for new research strategies to optimize care and improve outcomes.5 Like other patients with chronic heart disease, patients with ACHD have been demonstrated to have rapidly rising rates of hospitalization and medical resource utilization.6,7 Current data support the notion that appropriate disease-specific care improves both health outcomes and cost-effectiveness in populations with acquired heart disease.8–12 The recent demonstration that specialized ACHD care may result in more positive outcomes for ACHD patients suggests that these patients may benefit from novel disease-specific pharmacological and device therapies analogous to improvements in outcomes realized in patients with acquired heart disease.13To facilitate identification of new therapeutic approaches and to address the need for improved research in ACHD healthcare quality, an ACHD-specific PRO is critical. ACHD clinical research arguably remains in its infancy. The great majority of research in the field is retrospective and nonrandomized. Although changes in practice based on such research have clearly benefited ACHD patients, further improvements will require better outcome data on quality, including the symptom, function, and QOL status of patients.13,14 The limited number of well-conducted, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in ACHD have largely failed to demonstrate the efficacy of modern neurohumoral modulation in decreasing hospitalization or mortality in this population.15–20 These failures may well indicate inefficacy of the tested interventions. There are nevertheless trends present in these studies, indicating that patient heterogeneity, inadequate study power, and non ACHD-specific outcomes may have contributed to their failure to yield statistically significant results. As the first 2 variables are nearly unresolvable in ACHD research, it is necessary to expand our measurement of outcomes to include novel measures that are clinically relevant, associated with other hard outcomes, and meaningful to patients.In this regard, PRO tools are ideally suited to facilitate further progress in ACHD research. PRO tools have been widely used as outcomes in acquired chronic heart disease research. In this setting, optimally designed tools have been shown to be both predictive of hard outcomes and sensitive to changes in patients' health status; a major therapeutic goal of treatment.21–26 In ACHD research, exercise tolerance has been widely adopted as a surrogate for hard outcomes because of its good correlation with event-free survival.27–29 The heterogeneity of exercise tolerance in the ACHD population, however, makes prognosticating based on exercise capacity alone problematic.30 Moreover, by design, exercise tolerance measures what patients are capable of performing, but not how they routinely perform. It does not directly assess symptoms or patients' perceived health-related QOL. There is, however, a growing appreciation that health-related QOL is an essential outcome metric in clinical research.31–33 The capacity of PROs to measure QOL, potentially including domains to assess depression or anxiety, is particularly important in the US ACHD population, which is recognized to be susceptible to psychological disorders.34 Despite its correlation with hard outcomes, exercise tolerance performs poorly in predicting health-related QOL among ACHD patients.35,36This is not to suggest that the importance of health-related QOL has been ignored by the ACHD community. In fact, there are multiple examples of trials that have used existing QOL assessment tools in various clinical scenarios.37–41 Nearly all existing studies in ACHD that have used QOL as an end point, however, have used generic health-related QOL tools, such as the 36 question short form (SF-36) Although these tools are better assessments of QOL than other clinical variables, they are not designed to measure the unique manifestations of ACHD on patients' health status and are insensitive to clinical changes that are important to ACHD patients and those who treat them.21,42,43 Disease-specific PRO tools, in contrast, may have the advantage of both accurately assessing QOL and sensitively capturing changes in patients' health status.44We think that the time is right for the ACHD research community to focus on developing a well-designed and validated, ACHD-specific, PRO tool. Although some domains of symptoms and physical function may be captured well by existing disease-specific tools for heart failure, other domains need to be considered and new domains will likely warrant quantification. For example, the psychological effects of chronic heart disease are significantly different in patients who acquired their disease, as compared with ACHD patients, who have never known a disease-free life.45 Acquired chronic heart disease has a profound effect on all aspects of QOL, and QOL in this population correlates strongly with disease severity, activity, and duration.46–49 In contrast, QOL in patients with ACHD correlates poorly with disease complexity or degree of cardiac dysfunction.50,51 In fact, outside of the physical domain, ACHD patients demonstrate little difference in their reported QOL compared with the general population.52,53 Furthermore, anxiety and depression are common among patients with acquired chronic heart disease and have a strong correlation with clinical outcomes.54–60 In contrast, studies investigating the prevalence of depression and anxiety in ACHD patients have had conflicting results, and no study has specifically investigated correlations between depression or anxiety and clinical outcomes.45 The psychological differences between patients with acquired chronic heart disease and ACHD would therefore be anticipated to decrease the probability that existing tools will be useful in the latter group of patients.The unique anatomy and sequelae of ACHD would further confound employment of existing PRO tools in this population. As a result of their underlying anatomy, ACHD patients as a group are more likely to experience progressive right ventricular failure and cyanosis than are patients with acquired heart disease. These problems would be anticipated to be associated with distinct symptoms, which differ from those experienced by patients with progressive acquired heart disease. In addition, the anatomic and physiological heterogeneity which characterize ACHD would limit the validity and responsiveness of any questionnaire designed specifically for a single disease process. Hospital admissions among patients with ACHD are nearly equally divided between those for arrhythmia, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure.7 Retrospective data and experience would suggest that the probability of hospitalization for each of these reasons differs significantly depending on underlying anatomy and repair. Furthermore, within a group of patients with similar anatomy and repair, >1 existing PRO may provide relevant information. For example, patients with complete transposition of the great arteries who have undergone an atrial level repair would likely be ideally evaluated using PRO tools specific for both heart failure and arrhythmia. An ideal PRO for ACHD would likely require a core set of measures that are relevant to all patients with ACHD, supplemented by disease-specific modules for specific anatomic and physiological subsets of this heterogeneous population.The unique character of the ACHD population thus demands a unique approach to the development of an ACHD-specific PRO tool. We propose using an iterative process for the development of this tool in 4 distinct steps:Step 1: ACHD healthcare professional survey. To help build a conceptual model for constructing a modular PRO platform for ACHD, physicians and nurses who care for these patients should be surveyed to help categorize the range of ACHD into groups based on the clinical manifestations that they perceive patients experience. They should also provide a list of symptoms that they think are reflective of clinical deterioration and have a significant effect on a patient's QOL. In addition, they will be asked to provide a list of acute medical stressors, events such as recent hospitalizations, surgeries, or device placement procedures that may affect PRO responses. These symptoms and stressors will be compiled into a patient survey.Step 2: ACHD patient survey. During this step, the survey constructed as a part of Step 1 should be given to ACHD patients, along with open-ended opportunities for patients to elaborate on how they perceive their disease to affect their lives. Patients should rank the symptoms and stressors identified by ACHD professionals in order of greatest effect on their QOL. In addition, they will be asked to provide a list of symptoms not mentioned on the questionnaire, but which they feel are of significance in their QOL. Survey responses will be grouped based on underlying patient anatomy and repair to confirm the construct validity of ACHD types proposed by clinicians.Step 3: Construction of questionnaires. Using the data compiled during Steps 1 and 2, preliminary PRO questionnaires should be constructed. We anticipate that, in spite of the heterogeneity in this patient population, certain common symptom complexes will emerge. These symptom complexes will have a variable effect on QOL depending on underlying diagnosis and repair. These symptom complexes should be used to construct modular questionnaires that can be variously applied, depending on underlying ACHD diagnosis and repair. These questionnaires will then be subjected to cognitive debriefing in patient focus groups to optimize accuracy, interpretability, and validity.Step 4: Validation of questionnaires. Any proposed PRO needs to demonstrate adequate psychometric properties, including validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability. To establish these properties, any proposed ACHD-specific PRO modules will need to be administered to ACHD patients, including those with different anatomic and physiological states. This should be performed over time, ideally at each outpatient visit at multiple centers over the course of several years and before and after therapeutic interventions. ACHD patients could also be asked to complete other, standard PROs at these visits to better support, compare, and contrast the benefits of the new tools over and above existing instruments.35,61,62 During this period, hospitalization and mortality data should be recorded for respondents to establish the predictive validity of the various tools being tested.The derivation of an ACHD-specific PRO tool represents a unique challenge for the community providing care to ACHD patients, but is one that it is necessary to accomplish as we strive to improve care and treatment for this growing population of patients. Disease heterogeneity in the ACHD population and psychological differences between this population and that of patients with acquired chronic heart disease represent significant obstacles to be overcome. Nevertheless, the rising social and financial burden of ACHD in the United States demands that the community of ACHD providers step up to improve the quality and relevance of research in ACHD. The development of an ACHD-specific PRO is a key missing piece to meeting this demand.DisclosuresAri Cedars receives research support from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer PharmaceuticalsJohn Spertus has a research contract from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and has a copyright on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and the Peripheral Artery QuestionnaireFootnotesCorrespondence to Ari Cedars, 660 S. Euclid Ave Campus Box 8086, Saint Louis, MO 63110. E-mail [email protected]References1. Spertus JA. Evolving applications for patient-centered health status measures.Circulation. 2008; 118:2103–2110.LinkGoogle Scholar2. Afilalo J, Therrien J, Pilote L, Ionescu-Ittu R, Martucci G, Marelli AJ. Geriatric congenital heart disease: burden of disease and predictors of mortality.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:1509–1515.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Moons P, Bovijn L, Budts W, Belmans A, Gewillig M. Temporal trends in survival to adulthood among patients born with congenital heart disease from 1970 to 1992 in Belgium.Circulation. 2010; 122:2264–2272.LinkGoogle Scholar4. Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, Child JS, Connolly HM, Dearani JA, del Nido P, Fasules JW, Graham TP, Hijazi ZM, Hunt SA, King ME, Landzberg MJ, Miner PD, Radford MJ, Walsh EP, Webb GD, Smith SC, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Buller CE, Creager MA, Ettinger SM, Halperin JL, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, Page RL, Riegel B, Tarkington LG, Yancy CW. ACC/AHA 2008 guidelines for the management of adults with congenital heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease). Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52:e143–e263.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Mensah GA, Brown DW. An overview of cardiovascular disease burden in the United States.Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26:38–48.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. O'Leary JM, Siddiqi OK, de Ferranti S, Landzberg MJ, Opotowsky AR. The changing demographics of congenital heart disease hospitalizations in the United States, 1998 through 2010.JAMA. 2013; 309:984–986.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Opotowsky AR, Siddiqi OK, Webb GD. Trends in hospitalizations for adults with congenital heart disease in the US.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54:460–467.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Novack V, Jotkowitz A, Porath A. Temporal trends in the hospitalization and outcomes of patients with decompensated heart failure Multicenter study.Int J Cardiol. 2011; 147:265–270.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Anderson C, Deepak BV, Amoateng-Adjepong Y, Zarich S. Benefits of comprehensive inpatient education and discharge planning combined with outpatient support in elderly patients with congestive heart failure.Congest Heart Fail. 2005; 11:315–321.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, Zachry WM. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure enrolled in a managed care organization: effect on costs and probability of hospitalization.Pharmacotherapy. 2004; 24:351–357.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Fowler MB, Vera-Llonch M, Oster G, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, Colucci WS, Gilbert EM, Lukas MA, Lacey MJ, Richner R, Young ST, Packer M. Influence of carvedilol on hospitalizations in heart failure: incidence, resource utilization and costs. U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37:1692–1699.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Johnson D, Jin Y, Quan H, Cujec B. Beta-blockers and angiotensin- converting enzyme inhibitors/receptor blockers prescriptions after hospital discharge for heart failure are associated with decreased mortality in Alberta, Canada.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42:1438–1445.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Mylotte D, Pilote L, Ionescu-Ittu R, Abrahamowicz M, Khairy P, Therrien J, Mackie AS, Marelli A. Specialized adult congenital heart disease care: the impact of policy on mortality.Circulation. 2014; 129:1804–1812.LinkGoogle Scholar14. Gurvitz M, Marelli A, Mangione-Smith R, Jenkins K. Building quality indicators to improve care for adults with congenital heart disease.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:2244–2253.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Babu-Narayan SV, Uebing A, Davlouros PA, Kemp M, Davidson S, Dimopoulos K, Bayne S, Pennell DJ, Gibson DG, Flather M, Kilner PJ, Li W, Gatzoulis MA. Randomised trial of ramipril in repaired tetralogy of Fallot and pulmonary regurgitation: the APPROPRIATE study (Ace inhibitors for potential prevention of the deleterious effects of pulmonary regurgitation in adults with repaired tetralogy of fallot).Int J Cardiol. 2012; 154:299–305.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Norozi K, Bahlmann J, Raab B, Alpers V, Arnhold JO, Kuehne T, Klimes K, Zoege M, Geyer S, Wessel A, Buchhorn R. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of beta-blockade in patients who have undergone surgical correction of tetralogy of Fallot.Cardiol Young. 2007; 17:372–379.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. van der Bom T, Winter MM, Bouma BJ, Groenink M, Vliegen HW, Pieper PG, van Dijk AP, Sieswerda GT, Roos-Hesselink JW, Zwinderman AH, Mulder BJ. Effect of valsartan on systemic right ventricular function: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial.Circulation. 2013; 127:322–330.LinkGoogle Scholar18. Dos L, Pujadas S, Estruch M, Mas A, Ferreira-González I, Pijuan A, Serra R, Ordóñez-Llanos J, Subirana M, Pons-Lladó G, Marsal JR, García-Dorado D, Casaldàliga J. Eplerenone in systemic right ventricle: double blind randomized clinical trial. The evedes study.Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168:5167–5173.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Schuuring MJ, Vis JC, van Dijk AP, van Melle JP, Vliegen HW, Pieper PG, Sieswerda GT, de Bruin-Bon RH, Mulder BJ, Bouma BJ. Impact of bosentan on exercise capacity in adults after the Fontan procedure: a randomized controlled trial.Eur J Heart Fail. 2013; 15:690–698.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Galiè N, Beghetti M, Gatzoulis MA, Granton J, Berger RM, Lauer A, Chiossi E, Landzberg M; Bosentan Randomized Trial of Endothelin Antagonist Therapy-5 (BREATHE-5) Investigators. Bosentan therapy in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.Circulation. 2006; 114:48–54.LinkGoogle Scholar21. Green CP, Porter CB, Bresnahan DR, Spertus JA. Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: a new health status measure for heart failure.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35:1245–1255.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22. Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Validity of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire as a measure of therapeutic response to enalapril or placebo.Am J Cardiol. 1993; 71:1106–1107.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Rector TS, Cohn JN. Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group.Am Heart J. 1992; 124:1017–1025.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Joseph SM, Novak E, Arnold SV, Jones PG, Khattak H, Platts AE, Dávila-Román VG, Mann DL, Spertus JA. Comparable performance of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.Circ Heart Fail. 2013; 6:1139–1146.LinkGoogle Scholar25. Iqbal J, Francis L, Reid J, Murray S, Denvir M. Quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and their carers: a 3-year follow-up study assessing hospitalization and mortality.Eur J Heart Fail. 2010; 12:1002–1008.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. Sullivan MD, Levy WC, Russo JE, Crane B, Spertus JA. Summary health status measures in advanced heart failure: relationship to clinical variables and outcome.J Card Fail. 2007; 13:560–568.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Diller GP, Giardini A, Dimopoulos K, Gargiulo G, Müller J, Derrick G, Giannakoulas G, Khambadkone S, Lammers AE, Picchio FM, Gatzoulis MA, Hager A. Predictors of morbidity and mortality in contemporary Fontan patients: results from a multicenter study including cardiopulmonary exercise testing in 321 patients.Eur Heart J. 2010; 31:3073–3083.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. Giardini A, Hager A, Lammers AE, Derrick G, Müller J, Diller GP, Dimopoulos K, Odendaal D, Gargiulo G, Picchio FM, Gatzoulis MA. Ventilatory efficiency and aerobic capacity predict event-free survival in adults with atrial repair for complete transposition of the great arteries.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:1548–1555.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29. Buys R, Van De Bruaene A, De Meester P, Budts W, Vanhees L. Predictors of mid-term event-free survival in adults with corrected tetralogy of Fallot.Acta Cardiol. 2012; 67:415–421.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar30. Kempny A, Dimopoulos K, Uebing A, Moceri P, Swan L, Gatzoulis MA, Diller GP. Reference values for exercise limitations among adults with congenital heart disease. Relation to activities of daily life–single centre experience and review of published data.Eur Heart J. 2012; 33:1386–1396.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. Lewis EF. Still at the drawing board: improving quality of life in heart failure.Circ Heart Fail. 2012; 5:137–139.LinkGoogle Scholar32. Anker SD, Agewall S, Borggrefe M, Calvert M, Jaime Caro J, Cowie MR, Ford I, Paty JA, Riley JP, Swedberg K, Tavazzi L, Wiklund I, Kirchhof P. The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials.Eur Heart J. 2014; 35:2001–2009.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. Rumsfeld JS, Alexander KP, Goff DC, Graham MM, Ho PM, Masoudi FA, Moser DK, Roger VL, Slaughter MS, Smolderen KG, Spertus JA, Sullivan MD, Treat-Jacobson D, Zerwic JJ; American Heart Association Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and Stroke Council. Cardiovascular health: the importance of measuring patient-reported health status: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.Circulation. 2013; 127:2233–2249.LinkGoogle Scholar34. Kovacs AH, Sears SF, Saidi AS. Biopsychosocial experiences of adults with congenital heart disease: review of the literature.Am Heart J. 2005; 150:193–201.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar35. Müller J, Hess J, Hager A. Sense of coherence, rather than exercise capacity, is the stronger predictor to obtain health-related quality of life in adults with congenital heart disease.Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013; 21:949–955.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar36. Müller J, Hess J, Hager A. Daily physical activity in adults with congenital heart disease is positively correlated with exercise capacity but not with quality of life.Clin Res Cardiol. 2012; 101:55–61.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar37. Müller J, Engelhardt A, Fratz S, Eicken A, Ewert P, Hager A. Improved exercise performance and quality of life after percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation.Int J Cardiol. 2014; 173:388–392.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar38. Becker-Grünig T, Klose H, Ehlken N, Lichtblau M, Nagel C, Fischer C, Gorenflo M, Tiede H, Schranz D, Hager A, Kaemmerer H, Miera O, Ulrich S, Speich R, Uiker S, Grünig E. Efficacy of exercise training in pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with congenital heart disease.Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168:375–381.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar39. Müller J, Hess J, Hörer J, Hager A. Persistent superior exercise performance and quality of life long-term after arterial switch operation compared to that after atrial redirection.Int J Cardiol. 2013; 166:381–384.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar40. Bygstad E, Pedersen LC, Pedersen TA, Hjortdal VE. Tetralogy of Fallot in men: quality of life, family, education, and employment.Cardiol Young. 2012; 22:417–423.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar41. Winter MM, van der Bom T, de Vries LC, Balducci A, Bouma BJ, Pieper PG, van Dijk AP, van der Plas MN, Picchio FM, Mulder BJ. Exercise training improves exercise capacity in adult patients with a systemic right ventricle: a randomized clinical trial.Eur Heart J. 2012; 33:1378–1385.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar42. Moons P, Van Deyk K, Budts W, De Geest S. Caliber of quality-of-life assessments in congenital heart disease: a plea for more conceptual and methodological rigor.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004; 158:1062–1069.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar43. Supino PG, Borer JS, Franciosa JA, Preibisz JJ, Hochreiter C, Isom OW, Krieger KH, Girardi LN, Bouraad D, Forur L. Acceptability and psychometric properties of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire among patients undergoing heart valve surgery: validation and comparison with SF-36.J Card Fail. 2009; 15:267–277.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar44. Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56:52–60.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar45. Kovacs AH, Moons P. Psychosocial functioning and quality of life in adults with congenital heart disease and heart failure.Heart Fail Clin. 2014; 10:35–42.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar46. Jaarsma T, Johansson P, Agren S, Strömberg A. Quality of life and symptoms of depression in advanced heart failure patients and their partners.Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2010; 4:233–237.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar47. Hobbs FD, Kenkre JE, Roalfe AK, Davis RC, Hare R, Davies MK. Impact of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction on quality of life: a cross-sectional study comparing common chronic cardiac and medical disorders and a representative adult population.Eur Heart J. 2002; 23:1867–1876.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar48. Boini S, Briançon S, Guillemin F, Galan P, Hercberg S. Occurrence of coronary artery disease has an adverse impact on health-related quality of life: a longitudinal controlled study.Int J Cardiol. 2006; 113:215–222.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar49. van Domburg RT, Daemen J, Morice MC, de Bruyne B, Colombo A, Macaya C, Richardt G, Fajadet J, Hamm C, van Es GA, Wittebols K, Macours N, Stoll HP, Serruys PW. Short- and long-term health related quality-of-life and anginal status of the Arterial Revascularisation Therapies Study part II, ARTS-II; sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.EuroIntervention. 2010; 5:962–967.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar50. Teixeira FM, Coelho RM, Proença C, Silva AM, Vieira D, Vaz C, Moura C, Viana V, Areias JC, Areias ME. Quality of life experienced by adolescents and young adults with congenital heart disease.Pediatr Cardiol. 2011; 32:1132–1138.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar51. Silva AM, Vaz C, Areias ME, Vieira D, Proença C, Viana V, Moura C, Areias JC. Quality of life of patients with congenital heart diseases.Cardiol Young. 2011; 21:670–676.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar52. Fteropoulli T, Stygall J, Cullen S, Deanfield J, Newman SP. Quality of life of adult congenital heart disease patients: a systematic review of the literature.Cardiol Young. 2013; 23:473–485.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar53. Apers S, Luyckx K, Moons P. Quality of life in adult congenital heart disease: what do we already know and what do we still need to know?Curr Cardiol Rep. 2013; 15:407.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar54. Rutledge T, Redwine LS, Linke SE, Mills PJ. A meta-analysis of mental health treatments and cardiac rehabilitation for improving clinical outcomes and depression among patients with coronary heart disease.Psychosom Med. 2013; 75:335–349.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar55. Mulligan K, Mehta PA, Fteropoulli T, Dubrey SW, McIntyre HF, McDonagh TA, Sutton GC, Walker DM, Cowie MR, Newman S. Newly diagnosed heart failure: change in quality of life, mood, and illness beliefs in the first 6 months after diagnosis.Br J Health Psychol. 2012; 17:447–462.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar56. Katon W, Lin EH, Kroenke K. The association of depression and anxiety with medical symptom burden in patients with chronic medical illness.Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2007; 29:147–155.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar57. Tully PJ, Baker RA. Depression, anxiety, and cardiac morbidity outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery: a contemporary and practical review.J Geriatr Cardiol. 2012; 9:197–208.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar58. Tully PJ, Baker RA, Knight JL. Anxiety and depression as risk factors for mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery.J Psychosom Res. 2008; 64:285–290.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar59. Sherwood A, Blumenthal JA, Hinderliter AL, Koch GG, Adams KF, Dupree CS, Bensimhon DR, Johnson KS, Trivedi R, Bowers M, Christenson RH, O'Connor CM. Worsening depressive symptoms are associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57:418–423.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar60. De Jong MJ, Chung ML, Wu JR, Riegel B, Rayens MK, Moser DK. Linkages between anxiety and outcomes in heart failure.Heart Lung. 2011; 40:393–404.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar61. Berg SK, King C, Overgaard D, Moons P. Sense of coherence as a resource for quality of life in patients with congenital heart disease: the benefits continue into adulthood.Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013; 12:567–568.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar62. Apers S, Moons P, Goossens E, Luyckx K, Gewillig M, Bogaerts K, Budts W; i-DETACH investigators. Sense of coherence and perceived physical health explain the better quality of life in adolescents with congenital heart disease.Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013; 12:475–483.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Kornowski R (2021) Patient-reported outcome measures in cardiovascular disease, European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes, 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab051 Cedars A and Kutty S (2020) The Way Forward in Congenital Heart Disease Research, JAMA Cardiology, 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2034, 5:9, (979), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020. Cedars A, Ko J, John A, Vittengl J, Stefanescu‐Schmidt A, Jarrett R, Kutty S and Spertus J (2020) Development of a Novel Adult Congenital Heart Disease–Specific Patient‐Reported Outcome Metric, Journal of the American Heart Association, 9:11, Online publication date: 2-Jun-2020. Cedars A and Blackmore C (2019) Use of a disease-specific mobile health application in the care of adults with congenital heart disease, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 10.1080/08998280.2019.1613865, 32:3, (336-339), Online publication date: 3-Jul-2019. Hörer J, Kasnar-Samprec J, Cleuziou J, Strbad M, Wottke M, Kaemmerer H, Schreiber C and Lange R (2016) Mortality Following Congenital Heart Surgery in Adults Can Be Predicted Accurately by Combining Expert-Based and Evidence-Based Pediatric Risk Scores, World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery, 10.1177/2150135116656001, 7:4, (425-435), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2016. Cedars A, Stefanescu Schmidt A, Broberg C, Zaidi A, Opotowsky A, Grewal J, Kay J, Bhatt A, Novak E and Spertus J (2016) Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients Experience Similar Symptoms of Disease Activity, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 9:2, (161-170), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016. November 2014Vol 7, Issue 6 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001406PMID: 25316774 Originally publishedOctober 14, 2014 Keywordsquality of lifecongenital heart defectsPDF download Advertisement SubjectsDiagnostic Testing
Referência(s)