Quality of life assessment for chronic stable angina

References

• Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. PharmacoEconomics17 (1), 13–35 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Provides information on how and whyseveral commonly used quality of life (QOL) instruments were developed, as well as references for their psychometric testing.
   Google Scholar
• Dougherty CM, Dewhurst T, Nichol WP, Spertus JA. Comparison of three quality of life instruments in stable angina pectoris: Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Quality of Life Index-Cardiac Version III. Clin. Epidmiol. 51(7), 569–575 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual. Life Res. 2(6), 369–395 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• •Discusses applying several commonly used instruments across populations in different countries.
   Google Scholar
• Gandjour A, Lauterbach K. Review of quality-of-life evaluations in patients with angina pectoris. PharmacoEconomics 16(2), 141–152 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Systematic review which examinesinstruments used in the assessment of angina in randomized trials.
   Google Scholar
• Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med. Care. 38 (Su ppl. 9), 11138–11150 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• •• Examines preference-based measures of QOL. Preference-based measures tend to de-emphasize functional status in order to examine patient preferences for certain health states.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K et al ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina-summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Am. Coll Carcliol 41 (1), 159–168 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Pilote L, Lauzon C, Huynh T et al Quality of life after acute myocardial infarction among patients treated at sites with and without on-site availability of angiography. Arch. Intern Merl 162(5), 553–559 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •Illustrates how certain procedures can in and of themselves be associated with differences in QOL. It therefore provides an argument for studying QOL in pure populations.
   Google Scholar
• Brorsson B, Bernstein SJ, Brook RII, Werko L. Quality of life of chronic stable angina patients 4 years after coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass surgery. J. Intern. Merl 249,47–57 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Brorsson B, Ifver J, Hays RD. The Swedish Health-Related Quality of Life Survey (SWED-QUAL). Qual Life Res. 2,33–45 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Brorsson B, Bernstein SJ, Brook RII, Werko L. Quality of life of patients with chronic stable angina before and four years after coronary revascularisation compared with a normal population. Heart 87, 140–145 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser MC, Fletcher AE, Parr G, Simpson A, Bulpitt CJ. A comparison of three quality of life instruments in subjects with angina pectoris: the Sickness Impact Profile, the Nottingham Health Profile and the Quality of Well-Being Scale. J. Clin. Epidemiol 47(2), 157–163 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEven J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc. Sci Med. 15A, 221–229 (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J. Epidemiol Corn. Health 34(4), 281–286 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SR Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 35(273), 185–188 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• de Bruin AF, de Witte LP, Stevens F, Diederiks JR Sickness Impact Profile: the state of the art of a generic functional status measure. Soc. Sci. Merl 35(8), 1003–1014 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Sieber WJ, Anderson JR The quality of well-being scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int. J. Qual Healthcare 10(6), 509–520 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Dixon T, Lim LLY, Oldridge NB. The MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life instrument: reference data for users. Qual Life Res. 11,173–183 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenti L, Lim LLY, Heller RF, Knapp J. An improved questionnaire for assessing quality of life after acute myocardial infarction. Qual Life Res. 5(1), 151–161 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst T et al. Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J. Am Coil. Carcliol. 25, 333–341 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman L, Hashimoto B, Cook EF, Loscalzo A. Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation 64,1227–1234 (1981).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spertus JA, Dewhurst T, Dougherty CM, Nichol P Testing the effectiveness of converting patients to long-acting anti-anginal medications: the Quality of Life in Angina Research Trial (QUART). Am. Heart 141,550–558 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spertus JA. Selecting end points in clinical trials: what evidence do we really need to evaluate a new treatment? Am. Heard 142, 745–747 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spertus JA, Dewhurt TA, Dougherty CM et al Benefits of an angina clinic for patients with coronary artery disease: a demonstration of health status markers of healthcare quality. Am. Heart 143, 145–150 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prutkin JM, Feinstein AR. Quality-of-life measurements: origin and pathogenesis. Yale J.Merl 75(2), 79–93 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Chen AY, Daley J, Thibault GE. Angina patients' rating of current health and health without angina. Merl Decis. Making-16, 169–177 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Brown N, Melville M, Gray D et al Quality of life four years after acute myocardial infarction: short form 36 scores compared with a normal population. Heart 81,352–358 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Merl Care. 26,724–735 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey. Merl Cala 33(1), 15–28 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson I, Hagman M, Wedel H. Age and angina as predictors of quality of life after myocardial infarction: a prospective comparative study. Scan. Canliovasc. J. 35, 252–258 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Thompson DR, Jenkinson C, Roebuck A, Lewin RJP, Boyle RM, Chandola T Development and validation of a short measure of health status for individuals with acute myocardial infarction: The Myocardial Infarction Dimensional Assessment Scale (MIDAS). Qual Life Res. 11,535–543 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsevat J, Goldman L, Lamas GA etal Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care. 29(11), 1153–1159 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon. Plan. Sci. 10,129 (1976).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BE Med 316(7133), 736–741 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck CA, Joseph L, Belisle P, Pilote L. Predictors of quality of life 6 months and 1 year after myocardial infarction. Am. Heart 142(2), 271–279 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Bradley CJ, Kroll J, Holmes-Rovner M. The health and activities limitation index in patients with acute myocardial infarction. j Cl/n. Epidemiol 53(6), 555–562 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Seed P, Treasure T, Hampton JR. Quality of life, employment status and anginal symptoms after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery: 3 year follow-up in the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) Trial. Circulation 94(2), 135–142 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Wahrborg P. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery. 1-year follow-up in the Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation (CABRI) trial. Eur. Heartj 20,653–658 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Borkon AM, Muehlebach GF, House J, Marso SP, Spertus JA. A comparison of the recovery of health status after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 74,1526–1530 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Clayton T, Lyman GH, Chamberlain DA, RITA-2 Trial Participants. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or continued medical treatment for angina: 3-year follow-up in the RITA-2 Trial. jAm. Coll Cardiol 35(4), 907–914 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Strauss WE, Fortin T, Hartigan P, Folland ED, Parisi AE A comparison of quality of life scores in patients with angina pectoris after angioplasty compared with after medical therapy. Outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Circulation 92, 1710–1719 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupuy H. The Psychological General Well- being (PGWB) Index. In: Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Bids of Calrliovascular Therapies. Wenger N, Mattson M, Furberg C, Elinson J (Eds). Le Jacq Publishers Inc., CT, USA, 170–183 (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Folland ED, Hartigan PM, Parisi AF, for the Veterans Affairs ACME Investigators. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus medical therapy for stable angina pectoris. jAm. Coll Canliol 29(7), 1505–1511 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino IKA, Bruce RA. An evaluation of internal mammary artery ligation by a double-blind technique. N Engl. j Med 260,1115–1118 (1959).
   Google Scholar
• Bliley AV, Ferrans CE. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty. Heart Lung22 (3), 193–199 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caine N, Harrison SCW, Sharples LD, Wallwork J. Prospective study of quality of life before and after coronary artery bypass grafting. Bri. Med.1. 302, 511–516 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Sjoland H, Caidahl K, Wiklund I etal Impact of coronary artery bypass grafting on various aspects of quality of life. Eur ICatrlio-thoracic Sung. 12,617–619 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klersy C, Collarini L, Morellini MC, Cellino E Heart surgery and quality of life: a prospective study on ischemic patients. Eur ICanlio-thoracic Surg. 12,602–609 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjoland H, Wiklund I, Caidahl K, Haglid M, Westberg S, Herlitz J. Improvement in quality of life and exercise capacity after coronary bypass surgery. Arch. Intern Med 156,265–271 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson A, Wiklund I, Lahti T, Wahl M. A summary index for the assessment of quality of life in angina pectoris. j Clin. Epidemiol 44,981–988 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaggs B, Yates BC. Quality of life comparisons after coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Heart Lung-28(6), 409–417 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Quality of life index: development and psychometric properties. Adv. Nuts. Sci. 8(1), 15–24 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Psychometric assessment of the quality of life index. Res. Nursing Health 15,29–38 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash IS, Curtis LH, Rubin H. Predictors of patient-reported physical and mental health 6 months after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Am Heart 138(3), 422–429 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Cleary PD, Epstein AM, Oster G etal Health-related quality of life among patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Med Cala 29(10), 939–949 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Cleary PD, Greenfield S, McNeil BJ. Assessing quality of life after surgery. Control. Clin. Trials. 12, S189—S203 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Verrill DE, Barton C, Beasley W, Lippard M, King CN. Six-minute walk performance and quality of life comparisons in North Carolina cardiac rehabilitation programs. Heart Lung 32(1), 41–51 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verrill DE, Barton C, Beasley W, Brennan M, Lippard M, King CN. Quality of life measures and gender comparisons in North Carolina Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs. .1. Cardiopulmonary Rehabil 21,37–46 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Herlitz J, Wiklund I, Caidahl K etal Determinants of an impaired quality of life five years after coronary artery bypass surgery. Heart81, 342–346 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukkarinen H, Hentinen M. Assessment of quality of life with the Nottingham Health Profile among women with coronary artery disease. Heart Lung27(3), 189–199 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjoland H, Wildund I, Caidahl K, Hartford M, Karlsson T, Herlitz J. Improvement in quality of life differs between women and men after coronary artery bypass surgery. Intern. Med 245,445–454 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimble LP, McGuire DB, Dunbar SB etal Gender differences in pain characteristics of chronic stable angina and perceived physical limitation in patients with coronary artery disease. Pain 101(102), 45–53 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chambers LW The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire. In: Assessment of Quality of Life. Wenger N (Ed.). Le Jacq, NY, USA (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual The Health Institute, Boston, MA, USA (1994).
   Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Cala 32(1), 40–66 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 31(3), 247–263 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Bush JVV, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the Index of Well-Being. Health Serv Res. 11,478–507 (1976).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, Martin DP, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: validation of a health status measure. Med. Care. 14(1), 57–67 (1976). 68Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med. Cam 19(8), 787–805 (1981).
   Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199–208 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2(3), 169–180 (1993).
   Google Scholar