BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is the most common symptom in acute heart failure (AHF), yet how to best measure it has not been well defined. Prior studies demonstrate differences in dyspnea improvement across various measurement scales, yet these studies typically enroll patients well after the emergency department (ED) phase of management. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine predictors of early dyspnea improvement for three different, commonly used dyspnea scales (i.e., five-point absolute Likert scale, 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS], or seven-point relative Likert scale). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of URGENT Dyspnea, an observational study of 776 patients in 17 countries enrolled within 1 hour of first physician encounter. Inclusion criteria were broad to reflect real-world clinical practice. Prior literature informed the a priori definition of clinically significant dyspnea improvement. Resampling-based multivariable models were created to determine patient characteristics significantly associated with dyspnea improvement. RESULTS: Of the 524 AHF patients, approximately 40% of patients did not report substantial dyspnea improvement within the first 6 hours. Baseline characteristics were similar between those who did or did not improve, although there were differences in history of heart failure, coronary artery disease, and initial systolic blood pressure. For those who did improve, patient characteristics differed across all three scales, with the exception of baseline dyspnea severity for the VAS and five-point Likert scale (c-index ranged from 0.708 to 0.831 for each scale). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of early dyspnea improvement differ from scale to scale, with the exception of baseline dyspnea. Attempts to use one scale to capture the entirety of the dyspnea symptom may be insufficient.
BACKGROUND:Dyspnea is the most common symptom in acute heart failure (AHF), yet how to best measure it has not been well defined. Prior studies demonstrate differences in dyspnea improvement across various measurement scales, yet these studies typically enroll patients well after the emergency department (ED) phase of management. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine predictors of early dyspnea improvement for three different, commonly used dyspnea scales (i.e., five-point absolute Likert scale, 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS], or seven-point relative Likert scale). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of URGENT Dyspnea, an observational study of 776 patients in 17 countries enrolled within 1 hour of first physician encounter. Inclusion criteria were broad to reflect real-world clinical practice. Prior literature informed the a priori definition of clinically significant dyspnea improvement. Resampling-based multivariable models were created to determine patient characteristics significantly associated with dyspnea improvement. RESULTS: Of the 524 AHF patients, approximately 40% of patients did not report substantial dyspnea improvement within the first 6 hours. Baseline characteristics were similar between those who did or did not improve, although there were differences in history of heart failure, coronary artery disease, and initial systolic blood pressure. For those who did improve, patient characteristics differed across all three scales, with the exception of baseline dyspnea severity for the VAS and five-point Likert scale (c-index ranged from 0.708 to 0.831 for each scale). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of early dyspnea improvement differ from scale to scale, with the exception of baseline dyspnea. Attempts to use one scale to capture the entirety of the dyspnea symptom may be insufficient.
Authors: C M O'Connor; R C Starling; A F Hernandez; P W Armstrong; K Dickstein; V Hasselblad; G M Heizer; M Komajda; B M Massie; J J V McMurray; M S Nieminen; C J Reist; J L Rouleau; K Swedberg; K F Adams; S D Anker; D Atar; A Battler; R Botero; N R Bohidar; J Butler; N Clausell; R Corbalán; M R Costanzo; U Dahlstrom; L I Deckelbaum; R Diaz; M E Dunlap; J A Ezekowitz; D Feldman; G M Felker; G C Fonarow; D Gennevois; S S Gottlieb; J A Hill; J E Hollander; J G Howlett; M P Hudson; R D Kociol; H Krum; A Laucevicius; W C Levy; G F Méndez; M Metra; S Mittal; B-H Oh; N L Pereira; P Ponikowski; W H W Tang; W H Wilson; S Tanomsup; J R Teerlink; F Triposkiadis; R W Troughton; A A Voors; D J Whellan; F Zannad; R M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William T Abraham; Kirkwood F Adams; Gregg C Fonarow; Maria Rosa Costanzo; Robert L Berkowitz; Thierry H LeJemtel; Mei L Cheng; Janet Wynne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-07-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Peter S Pang; Mihai Gheorghiade; Jamil Dihu; Karl Swedberg; Sadiya Khan; Aldo P Maggioni; Liliana Grinfeld; Faiez Zannad; John C Burnett; John Ouyang; James E Udelson; Marvin A Konstam Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: John R Teerlink; Gad Cotter; Beth A Davison; G Michael Felker; Gerasimos Filippatos; Barry H Greenberg; Piotr Ponikowski; Elaine Unemori; Adriaan A Voors; Kirkwood F Adams; Maria I Dorobantu; Liliana R Grinfeld; Guillaume Jondeau; Alon Marmor; Josep Masip; Peter S Pang; Karl Werdan; Sam L Teichman; Angelo Trapani; Christopher A Bush; Rajnish Saini; Christoph Schumacher; Thomas M Severin; Marco Metra Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marco Metra; John G Cleland; Beth Davison Weatherley; Howard C Dittrich; Michael M Givertz; Barry M Massie; Christopher M O'Connor; Piotr Ponikowski; John R Teerlink; Adriaan A Voors; Gad Cotter Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Marco Metra; Christopher M O'Connor; Beth A Davison; John G F Cleland; Piotr Ponikowski; John R Teerlink; Adriaan A Voors; Michael M Givertz; George A Mansoor; Daniel M Bloomfield; Gang Jia; Paul DeLucca; Barry Massie; Howard Dittrich; Gad Cotter Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ryenn L West; Adrian F Hernandez; Christopher M O'Connor; Randall C Starling; Robert M Califf Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Robert J Mentz; Adrian F Hernandez; Amanda Stebbins; Justin A Ezekowitz; G Michael Felker; Gretchen M Heizer; Dan Atar; John R Teerlink; Robert M Califf; Barry M Massie; Vic Hasselblad; Randall C Starling; Christopher M O'Connor; Piotr Ponikowski Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Jacob P Kelly; Robert J Mentz; Alexandre Mebazaa; Adriaan A Voors; Javed Butler; Lothar Roessig; Mona Fiuzat; Faiez Zannad; Bertram Pitt; Christopher M O'Connor; Carolyn S P Lam Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kenneth M Faulkner; Corrine Y Jurgens; Quin E Denfeld; Karen S Lyons; Jessica Harman Thompson; Christopher S Lee Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Joyce N Njoroge; Baljash Cheema; Andrew P Ambrosy; Stephen J Greene; Sean P Collins; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Alexandre Mebazaa; Ovidiu Chioncel; Javed Butler; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Gianni Turcato; Gianfranco Cervellin; Gian Luca Salvagno; Eleonora Zaccaria; Giuseppe Bartucci; Marco David; Antonio Bonora; Massimo Zannoni; Giorgio Ricci; Giuseppe Lippi Journal: J Med Biochem Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Nathan Robbins; Mark Gilbert; Mohit Kumar; James W McNamara; Patrick Daly; Sheryl E Koch; Ginger Conway; Mohamed Effat; Jessica G Woo; Sakthivel Sadayappan; Jack Rubinstein Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 5.501