INTRODUCTION: Despite having increased life expectancy, patients with congenital heart disease are sometimes presumed to have a diminished quality of life. This study therefore assessed the quality of life and perceived health of adults with congenital heart disease and compared these two measures with those reported by healthy control subjects. METHODS: Using a comparative study design, we examined quality of life and perceived health in 404 patients who were matched for age, sex, educational level, and employment status with 404 healthy counterparts. Quality of life was measured using a linear analog scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Problems and concerns relevant to patients' quality of life were assessed by the Congenital Heart Disease-TNO-AZL Adult Quality of Life scale. Perceived health was also assessed with a linear analog scale. RESULTS: Patients perceived their quality of life (median linear analog scale score 80; median Satisfaction with Life Scale score 28) and health status to be good (median linear analog scale 80). Quality of life was significantly better in patients with congenital heart disease than in healthy peers, with a mean standardized difference of 0.22 on the linear analog scale and 0.34 on the Satisfaction with Life Scale. No group difference was found for perceived health. Problems and concerns in adults with congenital heart disease overlapped to a large extent with those identified by control subjects. Patients reported significantly higher distress scores for 16 of 77 items, whereas control subjects perceived more distress for 20 items. CONCLUSION: Adults with congenital heart disease perceived their quality of life to be better than did their healthy counterparts. This finding refutes the presumed lower quality of life in patients with cardiac anomalies.
INTRODUCTION: Despite having increased life expectancy, patients with congenital heart disease are sometimes presumed to have a diminished quality of life. This study therefore assessed the quality of life and perceived health of adults with congenital heart disease and compared these two measures with those reported by healthy control subjects. METHODS: Using a comparative study design, we examined quality of life and perceived health in 404 patients who were matched for age, sex, educational level, and employment status with 404 healthy counterparts. Quality of life was measured using a linear analog scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Problems and concerns relevant to patients' quality of life were assessed by the Congenital Heart Disease-TNO-AZL Adult Quality of Life scale. Perceived health was also assessed with a linear analog scale. RESULTS:Patients perceived their quality of life (median linear analog scale score 80; median Satisfaction with Life Scale score 28) and health status to be good (median linear analog scale 80). Quality of life was significantly better in patients with congenital heart disease than in healthy peers, with a mean standardized difference of 0.22 on the linear analog scale and 0.34 on the Satisfaction with Life Scale. No group difference was found for perceived health. Problems and concerns in adults with congenital heart disease overlapped to a large extent with those identified by control subjects. Patients reported significantly higher distress scores for 16 of 77 items, whereas control subjects perceived more distress for 20 items. CONCLUSION: Adults with congenital heart disease perceived their quality of life to be better than did their healthy counterparts. This finding refutes the presumed lower quality of life in patients with cardiac anomalies.
Authors: Nancy A Pike; Lorraine S Evangelista; Lynn V Doering; Jo-Ann Eastwood; Alan B Lewis; John S Child Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Nancy A Pike; Lorraine S Evangelista; Lynn V Doering; Deborah Koniak-Griffin; Alan B Lewis; John S Child Journal: Congenit Heart Dis Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Petra Opić; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Judith A A Cuypers; Maarten Witsenburg; Annemien van den Bosch; Ron T van Domburg; Ad J J C Bogers; Elisabeth M W J Utens Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Angela E Lin; Craig T Basson; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Pilar L Magoulas; Deborah A McDermott; Donna M McDonald-McGinn; Elspeth McPherson; Colleen A Morris; Jacqueline Noonan; Catherine Nowak; Mary Ella Pierpont; Reed E Pyeritz; Alan F Rope; Elaine Zackai; Barbara R Pober Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Christina E Holbein; Nicholas D Fogleman; Kevin Hommel; Silke Apers; Jessica Rassart; Philip Moons; Koen Luyckx; Maayke A Sluman; Junko Enomoto; Bengt Johansson; Hsiao-Ling Yang; Mikael Dellborg; Raghavan Subramanyan; Jamie L Jackson; Werner Budts; Adrienne H Kovacs; Stacey Morrison; Martha Tomlin; Kathy Gosney; Alexandra Soufi; Katrine Eriksen; Corina Thomet; Malin Berghammer; Luis Alday; Edward Callus; Susan M Fernandes; Maryanne Caruana; Samuel Menahem; Stephen C Cook; Gwen R Rempel; Kamila White; Paul Khairy; Shelby Kutty; Gruschen Veldtman Journal: Congenit Heart Dis Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 2.007