OBJECTIVES: Since few studies have investigated Health related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in older patients with atrial fibrillation, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare HRQoL in AF elderly inpatients of 65 and more with that of age-matched controlled subjects. DESIGN: HRQoL was assessed with two generic HRQoL instruments: the MOS-SF 36, a largely recognized instrument, and the Duke Health Profile. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Nancy University Hospital patients presenting with atrial fibrillation and three controls per patient free of cardiac arrhythmias, matched by age, sex and hospital department to atrial fibrillation patients. RESULTS: Forty one atrial fibrillation patients and 123 controls were included. Both groups were comparable for associated disorders, other than coronary artery disease and chronic respiratory failure. After adjustment, scores among atrial fibrillation patients were lower than among controls in 8 of 10 Duke and 6 of 8 SF-36 subscales. In terms of Quality of Life, meaningful differences (>or= 5 points) were recorded in the Duke: Mental, Depression, Anxiety, General Score; and in the SF-36: Physical functioning, Role emotional, Social functioning and Vitality. Nevertheless statistically significant differences were only observed for the Duke Mental (p=0.01), Depression (p=0.003) and Anxiety (p=0.03) scores. CONCLUSIONS: In our study HRQoL measured in elderly inpatients with atrial fibrillation as compared with matched controlled was mainly altered in the "psychological" domains of the Duke Health Profile. From the patient's point of view, atrial fibrillation appears to have more mental than physical consequences. This study pointed out the utility to assess HRQoL in the management and treatment of elderly hospitalised atrial fibrillation patients.
OBJECTIVES: Since few studies have investigated Health related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in older patients with atrial fibrillation, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare HRQoL in AF elderly inpatients of 65 and more with that of age-matched controlled subjects. DESIGN: HRQoL was assessed with two generic HRQoL instruments: the MOS-SF 36, a largely recognized instrument, and the Duke Health Profile. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Nancy University Hospital patients presenting with atrial fibrillation and three controls per patient free of cardiac arrhythmias, matched by age, sex and hospital department to atrial fibrillationpatients. RESULTS: Forty one atrial fibrillationpatients and 123 controls were included. Both groups were comparable for associated disorders, other than coronary artery disease and chronic respiratory failure. After adjustment, scores among atrial fibrillationpatients were lower than among controls in 8 of 10 Duke and 6 of 8 SF-36 subscales. In terms of Quality of Life, meaningful differences (>or= 5 points) were recorded in the Duke: Mental, Depression, Anxiety, General Score; and in the SF-36: Physical functioning, Role emotional, Social functioning and Vitality. Nevertheless statistically significant differences were only observed for the Duke Mental (p=0.01), Depression (p=0.003) and Anxiety (p=0.03) scores. CONCLUSIONS: In our study HRQoL measured in elderly inpatients with atrial fibrillation as compared with matched controlled was mainly altered in the "psychological" domains of the Duke Health Profile. From the patient's point of view, atrial fibrillation appears to have more mental than physical consequences. This study pointed out the utility to assess HRQoL in the management and treatment of elderly hospitalised atrial fibrillationpatients.
Authors: P Dorian; W Jung; D Newman; M Paquette; K Wood; G M Ayers; J Camm; M Akhtar; B Luderitz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M Brignole; C Menozzi; M Gasparini; M G Bongiorni; G L Botto; R Ometto; P Alboni; C Bruna; A Vincenti; R Verlato Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kevin S Channer; Andrew Birchall; Richard P Steeds; Stephen J Walters; Wilf W Yeo; John N West; Rangasamy Muthusamy; Walter E Rhoden; Basil T Saeed; Phillip Batin; W Paul Brooksby; Ian Wilson; Simon Grant Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: M P van den Berg; R J Hassink; A E Tuinenburg; E F van Sonderen; J D Lefrandt; P J de Kam; I C van Gelder; A J Smit; R Sanderman; H J Crijns Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Rukshen Weerasooriya; Michael Davis; Anne Powell; Tamas Szili-Torok; Chetan Shah; David Whalley; Logan Kanagaratnam; William Heddle; James Leitch; Ann Perks; Louise Ferguson; Max Bulsara Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pham L Tran; C Leigh Blizzard; Velandai Srikanth; Vo T X Hanh; Nguyen T K Lien; Nguyen H Thang; Seana L Gall Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Steven T Heidt; Anna Kratz; Kayvan Najarian; Afton L Hassett; Hakan Oral; Richard Gonzalez; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Daniel Clauw; Hamid Ghanbari Journal: J Atr Fibrillation Date: 2016-06-30
Authors: Jeffrey J Goldberger; Rishi Arora; David Green; Philip Greenland; Daniel C Lee; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Michael Markl; Jason Ng; Sanjiv J Shah Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Federica Galli; Lidia Borghi; Stefano Carugo; Marco Cavicchioli; Elena Maria Faioni; Maria Silvia Negroni; Elena Vegni Journal: PeerJ Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.984