4.5 Article

Generic and disease-specific quality of life as a predictor of long-term mortality in heart failure

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages 1372-1378

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfq163

Keywords

Heart failure; Health-related quality of life; Mortality

Funding

  1. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [00/0035, 08/01280]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the vital prognosis of heart failure (HF) is generally poor, it varies substantially between patients. This study examined whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) predicts long-term mortality in HF. It also evaluated the role of generic and disease-specific HRQoL questionnaires. We studied 416 patients admitted for HF-related emergencies to four hospitals in Spain in 2000-2001. Health-related quality of life was measured at study baseline with a generic questionnaire, the SF-36, and with a disease-specific one, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire. Patients were followed prospectively to 2007 to ascertain all-cause mortality. During follow-up, 290 (69.7%) patients died. After adjustment for biomedical, healthcare, and social variables, a poor mental component summary (MCS) score on the SF-36 was associated with higher mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.76]. For MLWHF, a poor physical component summary (PCS) score predicted higher mortality (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01-1.70). In a stepwise Cox model that included the PCS scores of both the SF-36 and the MLWHF, only the PCS of the MLWHF was retained with P < 0.05. However, when both MCS scores were included, only the MCS of the SF-36 was retained with P < 0.05. The SF-36 MCS and the MLWHF PCS predict long-term mortality in patients with HF. Future research should identify the determinants of HRQoL and refine interventions to improve it.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available