RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were: 1) to assess the baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) using the standard gamble; 2) to evaluate and compare patients' preference for catheter versus computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography using the wait tradeoff (WTO) and rating scales; and 3) to calculate test disutility for catheter and CT coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with CAD who underwent both CT and catheter angiography were interviewed by telephone within 6 months of testing. Patients were asked about their baseline symptoms and quality of life, their experience preparing for both CT and catheter angiography, their desire to undergo CT or catheter angiography, and immediate treatment versus having a waiting period between test results and treatment for a hypothetical "ideal test" with no side effects. Test disutility for CT and catheter angiography were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The mean and median baseline HRQOL utility values were 0.72 and 0.91. The patients were willing to wait a mean (median) time of 12 (3) days after the ideal test for the test results to avoid undergoing CT angiography. They were willing to wait a mean (median) of 7 (3) days after the ideal test for test results, to avoid undergoing catheter angiography. There was no significant difference between waiting times or between patients' rating for their experience preparing for the two tests. Test disutility for CT angiography was 1.30 quality-adjusted life days (QALD) versus 2.16 QALD for catheter angiography (P > .05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in patient preference and test disutility between CT and catheter angiography in our small series. Future rigorously planned and adequately powered studies are required to confirm these findings in larger patient populations.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were: 1) to assess the baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) using the standard gamble; 2) to evaluate and compare patients' preference for catheter versus computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography using the wait tradeoff (WTO) and rating scales; and 3) to calculate test disutility for catheter and CT coronary angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with CAD who underwent both CT and catheter angiography were interviewed by telephone within 6 months of testing. Patients were asked about their baseline symptoms and quality of life, their experience preparing for both CT and catheter angiography, their desire to undergo CT or catheter angiography, and immediate treatment versus having a waiting period between test results and treatment for a hypothetical "ideal test" with no side effects. Test disutility for CT and catheter angiography were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The mean and median baseline HRQOL utility values were 0.72 and 0.91. The patients were willing to wait a mean (median) time of 12 (3) days after the ideal test for the test results to avoid undergoing CT angiography. They were willing to wait a mean (median) of 7 (3) days after the ideal test for test results, to avoid undergoing catheter angiography. There was no significant difference between waiting times or between patients' rating for their experience preparing for the two tests. Test disutility for CT angiography was 1.30 quality-adjusted life days (QALD) versus 2.16 QALD for catheter angiography (P > .05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in patient preference and test disutility between CT and catheter angiography in our small series. Future rigorously planned and adequately powered studies are required to confirm these findings in larger patient populations.
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Amanda Hunter; Anoop Shah; Valentina Assi; Stephanie Lewis; Kenneth Mangion; Colin Berry; Nicholas A Boon; Elizabeth Clark; Marcus Flather; John Forbes; Scott McLean; Giles Roditi; Edwin Jr van Beek; Adam D Timmis; David E Newby Journal: Heart Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 5.994