4.6 Article

A novel, simple scale for assessing the symptom severity of atrial fibrillation at the bedside: The CCS-SAFE Scale

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 383-386

出版社

PULSUS GROUP INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0828-282X(06)70922-9

关键词

atrial fibrillation; health outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The severity of symptoms caused by atrial fibrillation (AF) is extremely variable. Quantifying the effect of AF on patient well-being is important but there is no simple, commonly accepted measure of the effect of AF on quality of life (QoL). Current QoL measures are cumbersome and impractical for Clinical use. OBJECTIVE: To create a simple, concise and readily usable AF severity score to facilitate treatment decisions and physician communication. METHODS: The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Severity of Atrial Fibrillation (SAF) Scale is analogous to the CCS Angina Functional Class. The CCS-SAF score is determined using three steps: documentation of possible AF-related symptoms (palpitations, dyspnea, dizziness/syncope, chest pain, weakness/fatigue); determination of symptom-rhythm correlation; and assessment of the effect of these symptoms on patient daily function and QoL. CCS-SAF scores range from 0 (asymptomatic) to 4 (severe impact of symptoms on QoL and activities of daily living). Patients are also categorized by type of AF (paroxysmal versus persistent/permanent). The CCS-SAF Scale will be validated using accepted measures of patient-perceived severity of symptoms and impairment of QoL and will require 'field testing' to ensure its applicability and reproducibility in the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: This type of symptom severity scale, like the New York Heart Association Functional Class for heart failure symptoms and the CCS Functional Class for angina symptoms, trades precision and comprehensiveness for simplicity and ease of use at the bedside. A common language to quantify AF severity may help to improve patient care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据