4.5 Article

Quality of Life as an Independent Predictor for Cardiac Events and Death in Patients With Heart Failure

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 75, 期 7, 页码 1661-1669

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-10-1308

关键词

Heart failure; Hospitalization; Mortality; Quality of life

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [224943]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [10J04943] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Little is known about health-related quality of life (QOL) in Japanese patients with heart failure. The purpose of this study was to identify factors related to QOL using a disease-specific QOL instrument, and to clarify whether QOL independently predicts clinical outcomes among Japanese patients with heart failure. Methods and Results: A total of 114 outpatients with heart failure were enrolled (mean age 64.7 +/- 15.8 years; 73.7% males). The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to assess patient's QOL was used. At baseline, depressive symptoms and chronic kidney disease were significantly associated with worse QOL in multiple regression analysis. During a 2-year follow up, patients with a MLHFQ score indicating worse QOL, had a higher incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiac death or hospitalization for heart failure, and a higher all-cause mortality than those with a score <26 (25.3% vs. 7.5%, P=0.011; 18.5% vs. 6.4%, P=0.018; respectively). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models demonstrated that a higher MLHFQ score was significantly associated with increased risks of cardiac events (hazard ratio, 1.02, 95% confidential interval, 1.001-1.05, P=0.038) and of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidential interval, 1.02-1.07, P=0.001). Conclusions: Depressive symptoms and chronic kidney disease are major determinants of impaired QOL, and the MLHFQ score is an independent predictor of both cardiac events and death among Japanese patients with heart failure. (Circ J 2011; 75: 1661-1669)

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

4.5
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