Rebecca Napier1, Steven E McNulty2, David T Eton3, Margaret M Redfield1, Omar AbouEzzeddine1, Shannon M Dunlay4. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: dunlay.shannon@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= -0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. -0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= -0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. -0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Yariv Gerber; Susan A Weston; Margaret M Redfield; Alanna M Chamberlain; Sheila M Manemann; Ruoxiang Jiang; Jill M Killian; Véronique L Roger Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rosita Zakeri; James A Levine; Gabriel A Koepp; Barry A Borlaug; Julio A Chirinos; Martin LeWinter; Peter VanBuren; Victor G Dávila-Román; Lisa de Las Fuentes; Prateeti Khazanie; Adrian Hernandez; Kevin Anstrom; Margaret M Redfield Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Stacie A Luther; Peter A McCullough; Edward P Havranek; John S Rumsfeld; Philip G Jones; Paul A Heidenreich; Eric D Peterson; Saif S Rathore; Harlan M Krumholz; William S Weintraub; John A Spertus; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Mikhail Kosiborod; Gabriel E Soto; Philip G Jones; Harlan M Krumholz; William S Weintraub; Prakash Deedwania; John A Spertus Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Susan M Joseph; Eric Novak; Suzanne V Arnold; Philip G Jones; Himad Khattak; Anne E Platts; Victor G Dávila-Román; Douglas L Mann; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Derek Yee; Eric Novak; Anne Platts; Michael E Nassif; Shane J LaRue; Justin M Vader Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Leah Rethy; Barry A Borlaug; Margaret M Redfield; Jae K Oh; Sanjiv J Shah; Ravi B Patel Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Peter H Brubaker; Teagan Avis; W Jack Rejeski; Shannon E Mihalko; Wesley J Tucker; Dalane W Kitzman Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.646
Authors: Li Shen; Rasmus Rørth; Deborah Cosmi; Søren Lund Kristensen; Mark C Petrie; Franco Cosmi; Roberto Latini; Lars Køber; Inder S Anand; Peter E Carson; Christopher B Granger; Michel Komajda; Robert S McKelvie; Scott D Solomon; Lidia Staszewsky; Karl Swedberg; Thao Huynh; Michael R Zile; Pardeep S Jhund; John J V McMurray Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Julija Gecaite-Stonciene; Julius Burkauskas; Adomas Bunevicius; Vesta Steibliene; Jurate Macijauskiene; Julija Brozaitiene; Narseta Mickuviene; Nijole Kazukauskiene Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-02-04
Authors: Nariman Sepehrvand; Anamaria Savu; John A Spertus; Jason R B Dyck; Todd Anderson; Jonathan Howlett; Ian Paterson; Gavin Y Oudit; Padma Kaul; Finlay A McAlister; Justin A Ezekowitz Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 5.501