Key result
Invasive care improves physical functioning vs conservative therapy in postinfarction ischaemia, but increases concentration difficulties.
Why the study?
Health related quality of life after conservative versus invasive treatment of inducible postinfarction ischaemia was not well characterized.
RCT (n=113)
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Invasive treatment was associated with better physical QoL scores; leaves open net clinical benefit given higher concentration difficulties in this cohort.
OBJECTIVE: To assess health related quality of life in patients with inducible postinfarction ischaemia. DESIGN: A questionnaire based follow up study on patients randomised to conservative or invasive treatment because of postinfarction ischaemia. SETTING: Seven county hospitals in eastern Denmark and the Heart Centre, National University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. PATIENTS: 113 patients with inducible postinfarction ischaemia: 51 were randomised to conservative treatment and 62 to invasive treatment. Average follow up time was three years (19-57 months). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SF-36, Rose angina and dyspnoea questionnaire, drug use, lifestyle, and cognitive function. RESULTS: Invasively treated patients scored better on the SF-36 scales of physical functioning (p = 0.03) and on role-physical (p = 0.04) and physical component scales (p = 0.05) and took significantly less anti-ischaemic drug treatment. Angina occurred in 18% of the invasively treated patients and 31% of the conservatively treated patients (p = 0.09). However, more invasively treated patients suffered from concentration difficulties (18% v 4%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were treated invasively had better health related quality of life scores in the physical variables compared with conservatively treated patients. However, a larger proportion of invasively treated patients had concentration difficulties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mortensen et al. (2000) conducted an RCT in Inducible postinfarction ischaemia (n=113). Invasive treatment vs. Conservative treatment was evaluated on SF-36 physical functioning scale (p=0.03). Invasive treatment for inducible postinfarction ischaemia improved SF-36 physical functioning scores (P=0.03) but increased concentration difficulties (18% vs 4%; P=0.04) over conservative care.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: