Comparing Measures to Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Background: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. Methods: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= −0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. −0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. Conclusions: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJACC: Heart Failure
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Heart Failure
Quality of Life
Cardiomyopathies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Nitrates
Patient Care

Keywords

  • heart failure
  • quality of life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{6a7f8979348045f29c0bb323b481228b,
title = "Comparing Measures to Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction",
abstract = "Objectives: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Background: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. Methods: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= −0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. −0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. Conclusions: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.",
keywords = "heart failure, quality of life",
author = "Rebecca Napier and McNulty, {Steven E.} and Eton, {David T} and Redfield, {Margaret May} and {Abou Ezzeddine}, Omar and Dunlay, {Shannon M}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jchf.2018.02.006",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "JACC: Heart Failure",
issn = "2213-1779",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Measures to Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

AU - Napier, Rebecca

AU - McNulty, Steven E.

AU - Eton, David T

AU - Redfield, Margaret May

AU - Abou Ezzeddine, Omar

AU - Dunlay, Shannon M

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Background: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. Methods: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= −0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. −0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. Conclusions: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.

AB - Objectives: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Background: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. Methods: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= −0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. −0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. Conclusions: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.

KW - heart failure

KW - quality of life

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047727123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047727123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.02.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.02.006

M3 - Article

JO - JACC: Heart Failure

JF - JACC: Heart Failure

SN - 2213-1779

ER -