Congenital heart disease subtype explained only 0.6% to 4.1% of the variance in patient-reported outcomes, which decreased to 0.4% to 0.9% after adjusting for functional status.
Cross-Sectional (n=3,538)
Yes
Do different subtypes of congenital heart disease predict differences in physical functioning, mental health, and quality of life in adult patients?
While specific congenital heart defects are associated with worse patient-reported outcomes, functional status (NYHA class) is the primary driver of these differences rather than the anatomical defect itself.
BACKGROUND: We compared physical functioning, mental health, and quality of life (QoL) of patients with different subtypes of congenital heart disease (CHD) in a large international sample and investigated the role of functional class in explaining the variance in outcomes across heart defects. METHODS: In the cross-sectional Assessment of Patterns of Patient-Reported Outcome in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease-International Study (APPROACH-IS), we enrolled 4028 adult patients with CHD from 15 countries. Diagnostic groups with at least 50 patients were included in these analyses, yielding a sample of 3538 patients (median age: 32 years; 52% women). Physical functioning, mental health, and QoL were measured with the SF-12 health status survey, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), linear analog scale (LAS) and Satisfaction with Life Scale, respectively. Functional class was assessed using the patient-reported New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Multivariable general linear mixed models were applied to assess the relationship between the type of CHD and patient-reported outcomes, adjusted for patient characteristics, and with country as random effect. RESULTS: Patients with coarctation of the aorta and those with isolated aortic valve disease reported the best physical functioning, mental health, and QoL. Patients with cyanotic heart disease or Eisenmenger syndrome had worst outcomes. The differences were statistically significant, above and beyond other patient characteristics. However, the explained variances were small (0.6% to 4.1%) and decreased further when functional status was added to the models (0.4% to 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Some types of CHD predict worse patient-reported outcomes. However, it appears that it is the functional status associated with the heart defect rather than the heart defect itself that shapes the outcomes.
Moons et al. (Mon,) conducted a cross-sectional in Congenital heart disease (n=3,538). Congenital heart disease subtype vs. Other congenital heart disease subtypes was evaluated on Physical functioning, mental health, and quality of life. Congenital heart disease subtype explained only 0.6% to 4.1% of the variance in patient-reported outcomes, which decreased to 0.4% to 0.9% after adjusting for functional status.