Brian W McCrindle1, Victor Zak2, Victoria L Pemberton3, Linda M Lambert4, Victoria L Vetter5, Wyman W Lai6, Karen Uzark7, Renee Margossian8, Andrew M Atz9, Amanda Cook10, Jane W Newburger8. 1. 1 The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2. 2 New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts. 3. 3 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. 4 Primary Children's Medical Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5. 5 The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. 6 Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 7. 7 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 8. 8 Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. 9 Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 10. 10 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare associations between generic versus disease-specific functional health status assessments and patient and clinical characteristics for patients with severe congenital heart disease. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study involving 325 single ventricle patients, aged 10-18 years, after Fontan procedure. Enrolled patients underwent a medical history review, laboratory testing, and assessment of the functional health status by completion of the generic Child Report Child Health Questionnaire and the disease-specific Congenital Heart Adolescent and Teenage questionnaire. Correlated conceptually equivalent domains from both questionnaires were identified and their associations with patient and clinical variables were compared. RESULTS: From the generic assessment, patients perceived marginally lower physical functioning (p = 0.05) but greater freedom from bodily pain compared with a normal population (p < 0.001). The equivalent physical functioning/limitations domain of the generic instrument, compared with the disease-specific instrument, had similar associations (higher multi-variable model R²) with medical history variables (R² = 0.14 versus R² = 0.12, respectively) and stronger associations with exercise testing variables (R² = 0.22 versus R² = 0.06). Similarly, the corresponding freedom from bodily pain/symptoms domains from both questionnaires showed a greater association for the generic instrument with medical history variables (R² = 0.15 versus R² = 0.09, respectively) and non-cardiac conditions (R² = 0.13 versus R² = 0.06). The associations of each questionnaire with echocardiographic results, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging results, and serum brain natriuretic peptide levels were uniformly weak (R² range <0.01 to 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of the physical functional health status using generic and disease-specific instruments yields few differences with regard to associations between conceptually similar domains and patient and clinical characteristics for adolescents after Fontan procedure.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare associations between generic versus disease-specific functional health status assessments and patient and clinical characteristics for patients with severe congenital heart disease. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study involving 325 single ventricle patients, aged 10-18 years, after Fontan procedure. Enrolled patients underwent a medical history review, laboratory testing, and assessment of the functional health status by completion of the generic Child Report Child Health Questionnaire and the disease-specific Congenital Heart Adolescent and Teenage questionnaire. Correlated conceptually equivalent domains from both questionnaires were identified and their associations with patient and clinical variables were compared. RESULTS: From the generic assessment, patients perceived marginally lower physical functioning (p = 0.05) but greater freedom from bodily pain compared with a normal population (p < 0.001). The equivalent physical functioning/limitations domain of the generic instrument, compared with the disease-specific instrument, had similar associations (higher multi-variable model R²) with medical history variables (R² = 0.14 versus R² = 0.12, respectively) and stronger associations with exercise testing variables (R² = 0.22 versus R² = 0.06). Similarly, the corresponding freedom from bodily pain/symptoms domains from both questionnaires showed a greater association for the generic instrument with medical history variables (R² = 0.15 versus R² = 0.09, respectively) and non-cardiac conditions (R² = 0.13 versus R² = 0.06). The associations of each questionnaire with echocardiographic results, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging results, and serum brain natriuretic peptide levels were uniformly weak (R² range <0.01 to 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of the physical functional health status using generic and disease-specific instruments yields few differences with regard to associations between conceptually similar domains and patient and clinical characteristics for adolescents after Fontan procedure.
Authors: Brian W McCrindle; Victor Zak; Lynn A Sleeper; Stephen M Paridon; Steven D Colan; Tal Geva; Lynn Mahony; Jennifer S Li; Roger E Breitbart; Renee Margossian; Richard V Williams; Welton M Gersony; Andrew M Atz Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bradley S Marino; Ryan S Tomlinson; Gil Wernovsky; Dennis Drotar; Jane W Newburger; Lynn Mahony; Kathleen Mussatto; Elizabeth Tong; Mitchell Cohen; Charlotte Andersen; David Shera; Philip R Khoury; Jo Wray; J William Gaynor; Mark A Helfaer; Anne E Kazak; Judy A Shea Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Bradley S Marino; David Shera; Gil Wernovsky; Ryan S Tomlinson; Abigail Aguirre; Maureen Gallagher; Angela Lee; Catherine J Cho; Whitney Stern; Lauren Davis; Elizabeth Tong; David Teitel; Kathleen Mussatto; Nancy Ghanayem; Marie Gleason; J William Gaynor; Jo Wray; Mark A Helfaer; Judy A Shea Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Linda M Lambert; L LuAnn Minich; Jane W Newburger; Minmin Lu; Victoria L Pemberton; Ellen A McGrath; Andrew M Atz; Mingfen Xu; Elizabeth Radojewski; Darlene Servedio; Brian W McCrindle Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-10-19 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: I-Chan Huang; Chyng-Chuang Hwang; Ming-Yen Wu; Wender Lin; Walter Leite; Albert W Wu Journal: Value Health Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Cedric Manlhiot; Stevan Knezevich; Elizabeth Radojewski; Geraldine Cullen-Dean; William G Williams; Brian W McCrindle Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Bradley S Marino; Ryan S Tomlinson; Dennis Drotar; Emily S Claybon; Abigail Aguirre; Richard Ittenbach; Josie S Welkom; Mark A Helfaer; Gil Wernovsky; Judy A Shea Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Linda M Lambert; Brian W McCrindle; Victoria L Pemberton; Danielle Hollenbeck-Pringle; Andrew M Atz; Chitra Ravishankar; M Jay Campbell; Carolyn Dunbar-Masterson; Karen Uzark; Martha Rolland; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Shaji C Menon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-04-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Shahryar M Chowdhury; Eric M Graham; Carolyn L Taylor; Andrew Savage; Kimberly E McHugh; Stephanie Gaydos; Arni C Nutting; Michael R Zile; Andrew M Atz Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Bryan H Goldstein; Elaine M Urbina; Philip R Khoury; Zhiqian Gao; Michelle A Amos; Wayne A Mays; Andrew N Redington; Bradley S Marino Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 5.501
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
Authors: Edwin de Beurs; Ellen Vissers; Robert Schoevers; Ingrid V E Carlier; Albert M van Hemert; Ybe Meesters Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 6.505