BACKGROUND: Two new questionnaires concerning the quality of life of patients with heart failure were used in a randomized, controlled trial to determine if the patients' perceptions of the effects of enalapril on their daily activities and sense of well-being were different from those of a group treated with hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate. METHODS AND RESULTS: The questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 3 months, 6 months, and subsequently every 6 months during follow-up, which averaged 2.5 years (range, 0.5-5.7 years). Data from the questionnaires were reliable as indicated by correlation coefficients between repeated baseline scores of 0.88 and 0.87. Both treatment groups showed a progressive deterioration in quality of life as measured by both questionnaires. The questionnaire scores of the two treatment groups were not significantly different at any follow-up visit. Furthermore, there were no differences between treatments among subgroups defined by baseline questionnaire scores, peak oxygen consumption, ejection fraction, previous vasodilator use, and plasma norepinephrine concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Although several factors may limit the generalization of these results, the lack of a difference with regard to patients' quality of life is an important consideration for the evaluation of the relative therapeutic efficacy of these vasodilators.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Two new questionnaires concerning the quality of life of patients with heart failure were used in a randomized, controlled trial to determine if the patients' perceptions of the effects of enalapril on their daily activities and sense of well-being were different from those of a group treated with hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate. METHODS AND RESULTS: The questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 3 months, 6 months, and subsequently every 6 months during follow-up, which averaged 2.5 years (range, 0.5-5.7 years). Data from the questionnaires were reliable as indicated by correlation coefficients between repeated baseline scores of 0.88 and 0.87. Both treatment groups showed a progressive deterioration in quality of life as measured by both questionnaires. The questionnaire scores of the two treatment groups were not significantly different at any follow-up visit. Furthermore, there were no differences between treatments among subgroups defined by baseline questionnaire scores, peak oxygen consumption, ejection fraction, previous vasodilator use, and plasma norepinephrine concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Although several factors may limit the generalization of these results, the lack of a difference with regard to patients' quality of life is an important consideration for the evaluation of the relative therapeutic efficacy of these vasodilators.
Authors: Olatz Garin; Montse Ferrer; Angels Pont; Montserrat Rué; Anna Kotzeva; Ingela Wiklund; Eric Van Ganse; Jordi Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Terry A Lennie; Debra K Moser; Martha J Biddle; Darlene Welsh; Geza G Bruckner; D Travis Thomas; Mary Kay Rayens; Alison L Bailey Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 2.228