Why the study?
Heart failure trials have historically focused on hospitalizations and mortality, but patients' quality of life and functional capacity are crucial priorities that require systematic integration into clinical care.
This ESC scientific statement emphasizes the critical need to systematically integrate quality of life assessments and patient-reported outcomes into routine heart failure care and clinical trials.
Routine QoL monitoring merits integration into HF care; leaves open optimal interventions to improve it in Level 3 data.
For most patients with chronic, progressive illnesses, maintaining good quality of life (QoL), with preserved functional capacity, is just as crucial as prolonging survival. Patients with heart failure (HF) experience much worse QoL and effort intolerance than both the general population and people with other chronic conditions, since they present a range of physical and psychological symptoms, including shortness of breath, chest discomfort, fatigue, fluid congestion, trouble with sleeping, and depression. These symptoms reduce patients' capacity for daily social and physical activity. Usual endpoints of large-scale trials in chronic HF have mostly been defined to evaluate treatments regarding hospitalizations and mortality, but more recently, patients' priorities and needs expressed with QoL are gaining more awareness and are being more extensively evaluated. This scientific statement aims at discussing the importance of QoL in HF, summarizing the most largely adopted questionnaires in HF care, and providing an overview on their application in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. Finally, by discussing the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this statement aims at fostering the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Volterrani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: