Key result
Heart failure patients across different ejection fraction categories showed significant differences in quality of life scores and rates of death and HF-related hospitalization.
Why the study?
Heart failure guidelines divide patients into three distinct groups based on LVEF, motivating the use of the MLHFQ to quantify health-related quality of life across these categories.
Cohort
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The MLHFQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing health status and offers prognostic value across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction in heart failure patients.
AIMS: Guidelines divide patients with heart failure (HF) into 3 distinct groups based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) We used the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to quantify the health-related quality of life in patients with HF. METHODS: Patients were stratified into three cohorts: preserved LVEF (>50%), mid-range LVEF (40-49%) and reduced LVEF (<40%). The MLHFQ scores were evaluated using one-way ANOVA, and differences were observed among the groups. The association of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class with the physical scores was analyzed by Spearman's correlation analysis. The predictive utility of the total MLHFQ scores was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves for death and HF-related hospitalization. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the risk factors for prognosis. Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the total MLHFQ scores and the MLHFQ subscale scores among the three groups (p<0.05). MLHFQ domains demonstrated high internal consistency among the three groups (Cronbach's α = 0.92, 0.96 and 0.93). The MLHFQ physical subscale scores were significantly associated with NYHA class in HFrEF (r = 0.59, p<0.001) and HFmrEF patients (r = 0.537, p<0.001). The survival analysis indicated that there was a significant difference among the three groups regarding high MLHFQ scores (p = 0.038). In the groups with low MLHFQ scores, the HFmrEF group exhibited significantly increased rates of death and HF-related hospitalization compared with the HFpEF group (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The features and clinical outcomes varied among heart failure patients with different EF values. The MLHFQ appears to be a valid and reliable measurement of health status and offers excellent prognostic ability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Heart failure. LVEF categories (preserved, mid-range, reduced) vs. Comparison among LVEF groups was evaluated on Total MLHFQ scores and composite of death and HF-related hospitalization (p=<0.05). Heart failure patients across different ejection fraction categories showed significant differences in quality of life scores and rates of death and HF-related hospitalization.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: