OBJECTIVES: Data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with single-ventricle physiology (SVP) are scarce. We sought (1) to describe the perceived health status, quality of life, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sense of coherence in adult survivors with SVP, (2) to compare PROs across functional classes, and (3) to compare PROs between patients and controls. METHODS: A case-control study in two adult congenital heart programmes with 62 adult survivors with SVP were matched to 172 healthy controls. A wide range of PROs were measured using validated questionnaires. The treating physician classified patients according to the Ability Index. RESULTS: Patients with SVP have a good functional status. Patients in Ability Index class I consistently reported the best scores, similar to those of healthy controls. Negative associations were found between functional class and outcomes of perceived health and quality of life. For patients in Ability Index class II and III, PROs were poorer. CONCLUSIONS: PROs in patients with SVP are generally good.
OBJECTIVES: Data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with single-ventricle physiology (SVP) are scarce. We sought (1) to describe the perceived health status, quality of life, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sense of coherence in adult survivors with SVP, (2) to compare PROs across functional classes, and (3) to compare PROs between patients and controls. METHODS: A case-control study in two adult congenital heart programmes with 62 adult survivors with SVP were matched to 172 healthy controls. A wide range of PROs were measured using validated questionnaires. The treating physician classified patients according to the Ability Index. RESULTS:Patients with SVP have a good functional status. Patients in Ability Index class I consistently reported the best scores, similar to those of healthy controls. Negative associations were found between functional class and outcomes of perceived health and quality of life. For patients in Ability Index class II and III, PROs were poorer. CONCLUSIONS: PROs in patients with SVP are generally good.
Authors: Karen Uzark; Victor Zak; Peter Shrader; Brian W McCrindle; Elizabeth Radojewski; James W Varni; Kaitlyn Daniels; Jill Handisides; Kevin D Hill; Linda M Lambert; Renee Margossian; Victoria L Pemberton; Wyman W Lai; Andrew M Atz Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: P Amedro; R Dorka; S Moniotte; S Guillaumont; A Fraisse; B Kreitmann; B Borm; H Bertet; C Barrea; C Ovaert; T Sluysmans; G De La Villeon; M Vincenti; M Voisin; P Auquier; M C Picot Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2015-05-31 Impact factor: 1.655
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
Authors: Nili Schamroth Pravda; Oren Zusman; Ilan Richter; Leonard Blieden; Shahar Vig; Ilan Marchushamer; Alexander Dadashev; Yaron Razon; Ran Kornowski; Rafael Hirsch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Kate H Marshall; Yves D'Udekem; Gary F Sholler; Alexander R Opotowsky; Daniel S J Costa; Louise Sharpe; David S Celermajer; David S Winlaw; Jane W Newburger; Nadine A Kasparian Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.501