4.6 Article

Quality of life in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease:: A comparative post hoe analyses of medical, angioplasty or surgical strategies-MASS II trial

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 116, Issue 3, Pages 364-370

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.06.001

Keywords

quality of life; coronary artery disease; aggressive medical therapy; revascularization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We evaluated the impact of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG), Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) or Medical Therapy (MT) on self-perceived quality of life among patients with stable Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). Background: The Medicine, Angioplasty and Surgery Study (MASS-II) implemented initial policies of CABG, PCI or continued medical treatment in patients who allow assessment of mid-term health consequences. Methods: A total of 542 patients were randomly assigned to CABG (175), to PCI (180) and to NIT (187). The short form 36 (SF-36) self-administered quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were applied at baseline, 6 months and 12 months later. Results: All the three therapeutic strategies presented significant improvement in all dimensions of the SF-36 during the follow-up (p < 0.0001). However, the CABG group was the one that had significantly greater improvement in physical and social functioning, vitality and general health when compared to NIT and PCI. Also, men had the best QoL at the beginning of the treatment when compared to women, with a progressive improvement after 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: The quality of life was better in both CABG and PCI groups compared to NIT after 1 year of follow-up. However, the patients submitted to CABG were the ones that presented the greater and progressive improvement of QoL. Also, men presented better QoL at the beginning and after treatment when compared to women. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available