4.3 Review

Quality of Life Changes in Acute Coronary Syndromes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186889

Keywords

quality of life; percutaneous coronary intervention; coronary artery bypass grafting; physician therapy; acute coronary syndrome; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is little up-to-date evidence about changes in quality of life following treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. The main aim of this review was to assess the changes in QoL in ACS patients after treatment. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. The search included studies that described the change of QoL of ACS patients after receiving treatment options such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy (MT). We synthesized findings using content analysis and pooled the estimates using meta-analysis. We used the PRISMA guidelines to select and appraise the studies and report the findings. Twenty-nine (29) articles were included in the review. We found a significant improvement of QoL in ACS patients after receiving treatment. Particularly, the meta-analytic association found that the mean QoL of patients diagnosed with ACS was higher after receiving treatment compared to baseline (overall pooled mean difference = 31.88; 95% CI = 31.64-52.11, I-2= 98) with patients on PCI having slightly lower QoL gains (pooled mean difference = 30.22; 95% CI = 29.9-30.53, I-2= 0%) compared to those on CABG (pooled mean difference = 34.01; 95% CI = 33.66-34.37, I-2= 0%). The review confirmed that QoL of ACS patients improved after receiving treatment therapies although varied by the treatment options and patients' preferences. This suggests the need to perform further study on the QoL, patient preferences and physicians' decision to prescription of treatment options.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available