Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in patients undergoing heart valve surgery: why should we measure them and which instruments should we use?

Charlotte Holmes, Norman Briffa, Charlotte Holmes, Norman Briffa

Abstract

Objective: As the population ages, the incidence of heart valve disease (HVD) is increasing. The aim of treatment is to improve prognosis and quality of life. Standard surgical treatment is being superseded by new catheter-based treatments, many of which are as yet unproven. The need for appropriate instruments to measure quality of life in patients receiving treatment for HVD has therefore never been greater.

Methods: In this prospective observational study, a generic instrument, Euroqol, and a disease-specific one (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire-MLHFQ) were, for the first time, formally tested before and after surgery in 84 patients with HVD who completed their treatment. Patients were interviewed on the night before surgery and 6-12 weeks after being discharged. Instruments were tested for validity, reliability, responsiveness, sensitivity and interpretability.

Results: Both Euroqol and MLHFQ registered significant improvements in patients' health. Tests for validity were significantly positive for both Euroqol and MLHFQ. Tests for reliability and responsiveness were very positive for MLHFQ, less so for EQ-5D. There was a moderate ceiling effect in the postoperative Index scores of Euroqol and a moderate floor effect in MLHFQ.

Conclusions: Both instruments together performed very well in assessing the health of patients undergoing surgical treatment of HVD. As the incidence of HVD increases and therapeutic options increase, measurement of PROMS using these two instruments should become a matter of routine.

Keywords: CARDIAC SURGERY; QUALITY OF CARE AND OUTCOMES.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Change in PROMS score with surgery. PROMS, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; VAS, visual analogue score.

References

    1. d’ Arcy JL, Prendergast BD, Chambers JB et al. . Valvular heart disease: the next cardiac epidemic. Heart 2011;97:91–3.
    1. Malhotra A. The Changing Burden of Valvular Heart Disease 2012. (accessed 8 May 2013).
    1. Supino PG, Borer JS, Franciosa JA et al. . 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;15:267–77.
    1. Georgiadou P, Kontodima P, Sbarouni E et al. . Long-term quality of life improvement after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am Heart J 2011;162:232–7.
    1. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013;346:f167.
    1. Browne J, Jamieson L, Lewsey J et al. . Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in elective surgery: report to the Department of Health London: Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2007. (accessed 22 Apr 2013).
    1. Calvert MJ, Freemantle N. Use of health- related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 1: why evaluate health- related quality of life? J Clin Pharm Ther 2003;28:513–21. 10.1046/j.0269-4727.2003.00521.x
    1. Hickey A, Barker M, McGee H et al. . Measuring health-related quality of life in older patient populations: a review of current approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23:971–93.
    1. Keszei AP, Novak M, Streiner DL. Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res 2010;68:319–23. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.006
    1. McPhail SM, Bagraith KS, Schippers M et al. . Use of condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials among patients with wrist osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Adv Orthop 2012;2012:273421.
    1. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27S217–32.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A et al. . A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004;13:873–84.
    1. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
    1. Mackintosh A, Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R. A structured review of Patient- Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for heart failure: report to the department of health Oxford: Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Group, University of Oxford, 2009. (accessed 25 Apr 2013).
    1. Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Patient's self-assessment of their congestive heart failure- part 2: content, reliability and validity of a new measure, the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Heart Fail 1987:198–209.
    1. Holland R, Rechel B, Stepien K et al. . Patients’ self-assessed functional status in heart failure by New York heart association class: a prognostic predictor of hospitalizations, quality of life and death. J Card Fail 2010;6:150–6.
    1. Spaziano M, Carrier M, Pellerin M et al. . Quality of life following heart valve replacement in the elderly. J Heart Valve Dis 2010;19:524–32.
    1. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996;334:835–40.
    1. Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measure in the clinical setting. BMJ 2001;322:1297–300.
    1. Davidson H, Keating J. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): how should I interpret reports of measurement properties? A practical guide for clinicians and researcher who are not biostatisticians. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:792–6. 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091704
    1. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), 2009. (accessed 30 Apr 2013).
    1. Walters SJ. Choosing a quality of life measure for your study. In: Walters SJ, ed.. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Oxford: Wiley, 2009:31–53.
    1. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002;14:109.
    1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD et al. . Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541–6.
    1. Black N, Jenkinson C. How can patients’ views of their care enhance quality improvement? BMJ 2009;339:202–5.
    1. Bowling A. Measuring broader health status. In: Bowling A. ed. Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. 3rd edn Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2005:75–7.
    1. Heo S, Moser DK, Riegel B et al. . Testing the psychometric properties of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Nurs Res 2005;54:265–72.
    1. Schroter S, Lamping DL. Coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire (CROQ): development and validation of a new, patient based measure of outcome in coronary bypass surgery and angioplasty. Heart 2004;90:1460–6.
    1. Mikaljevic T, Sayeed MR, Stamou SC et al. . Pathophysiology of aortic valve disease. In: Cohn LH, ed.. Cardiac surgery in the adult. 3rd edn New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008:825–40.
    1. Bonow RO, Otto CM. Valvular heart disease. In: Bonow RO, Mann DL, Zipes DP et al. eds. Braunwald's heart disease a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 9th edn Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012:1468–539.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe