Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Standard gamble (SG) is the preferred method of assessing preferences in situations with uncertainty and risk, which makes it relevant to patients considered for aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present study assesses SG preferences in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods

All patients >18 years old with severe AS referred for AVR to our institution were invited to enroll in the study. The SG was administered by a clinical research nurse. The SF-36, EQ-5D 3L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and AS symptoms were administered by self-completed questionnaire. We hypothesized that SG utilities would have low-to-moderate correlations with physical and mental aspects of health based on our pathophysiological understanding of severe AS. No correlations were expected with echocardiographic measures of the aortic valve.

Results

The response rate for SG was 98 %. SG moderately correlated with physical aspects of SF-36 (PCS, role-physical, vitality), health transition, AS symptoms, and EQ-VAS (ρ S = 0.31–0.39, p < 0.001) and had low correlation with mental aspects of SF-36 and EQ-5D (ρ S = 0.17–0.28, p < 0.001). No correlation was found between SG and HADS, echocardiographic measures, age, gender, or education level (ρ S = 0.01–0.06).

Conclusions

SG is an acceptable and feasible method of assessing preferences in patients with severe AS that has evidence for validity. The inclusion of uncertainty lends the SG face validity in this population as a direct approach to assessing preferences and basis for QALY calculations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leon, M. B., et al. (2010). Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(17), 1597–1607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reynolds, M. R., et al. (2011). Health-related quality of life after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation, 124(18), 1964–1972.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barreto-Filho, J. A., et al. (2013). Trends in aortic valve replacement for elderly patients in the United States, 1999–2011. JAMA, 310(19), 2078–2085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Martinez-Selles, M., et al. (2014). Prospective registry of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in octogenarians: a need for intervention. Journal of Internal Medicine, 275(6), 608–620.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gadey, G., & Reynolds, M. R. (2014). Cost-effectiveness considerations in transcatheter management of valvular heart disease. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 30(9), 1058–1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reardon, M. J. (2012). Cost-effectiveness analysis of TAVR. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, 8(2), 26–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989). Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5(4), 559–575.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Drummond, M. F., et al. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., & Feeny, D. (2002). Health utility estimation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2(2), 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gafni, A. (1994). The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Services Research, 29(2), 207–224.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Torrance, G. W., et al. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey: (standard & acute forms). Lincolm, RI: QualityMetric Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  14. McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Falcoz, P. E., et al. (2002). Comparison of the Nottingham Health Profile and the 36-item health survey questionnaires in cardiac surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 73(4), 1222–1228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tseng, E. E., et al. (1997). Aortic valve replacement in the elderly. Risk factors and long-term results. Annals of Surgery, 225(6), 793–802. (discussion 802-4).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sundt, T. M., et al. (2000). Quality of life after aortic valve replacement at the age of >80 years. Circulation, 102(19 Suppl 3), Iii70-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Loge, J. H., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 26(4), 250–258.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karlsen, T. I., et al. (2011). Validity of the SF-36 in patients with morbid obesity. Obesity Facts, 4(5), 346–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fredheim, O. M., et al. (2007). Validation and comparison of the health-related quality-of-life instruments EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36 in assessment of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 34(6), 657–665.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brazier, J., et al. (2003). Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 3(3), 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21(4), 329–334.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42(5), 459–471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Herrmann, C. (1997). International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—A review of validation data and clinical results. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42(1), 17–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. New York Heart Association Criteria, C. (1979). Nomenclature and criteria for diagnosis of diseases of the heart and great vessels. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lang, R. M., et al. (2005). Recommendations for chamber quantification: A report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 18(12), 1440–1463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Quinones, M. A., et al. (2002). Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: A report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 15(2), 167–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chesebro, J. H., et al. (1987). Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Trial, Phase I: A comparison between intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and intravenous streptokinase. Clinical Findings through hospital discharge. Circulation, 76(1), 142–154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Charlson, M. E., et al. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373–383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Charlson, M., et al. (1994). Validation of a combined comorbidity index. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(11), 1245–1251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health Economics, 8(1), 41–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dolan, P., et al. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bennett, J. A., et al. (2002). Validity and reliability of the NYHA classes for measuring research outcomes in patients with cardiac disease. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 31(4), 262–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carabello, B. A., & Paulus, W. J. (2009). Aortic stenosis. Lancet, 373(9667), 956–966.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Slevin, M. L., et al. (1990). Attitudes to chemotherapy: Comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ, 300(6737), 1458–1460.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 593–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making, 17(2), 208–216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van der Donk, J., et al. (1995). Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: A comparison of state and process utilities. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13(9), 2369–2378.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rutten-van Molken, M. P., et al. (1995). Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Medical Care, 33(9), 922–937.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Clarke, A. E., et al. (1997). The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 169–184.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zug, K. A., et al. (1995). Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis. A quantitative, utility approach. Archives of Dermatology, 131(5), 561–568.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nishimura, R. A., et al. (2014). 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 129(23), e521–e643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lloyd, A., et al. (2008). Health State Utility Scores for Cancer-Related Anemia through Societal and Patient Valuations. Value in Health, 11(7), 1178–1185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McNamee, P. (2007). What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Health Policy, 84(2–3), 321–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Reynolds, M. R., et al. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: Results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 60(25), 2683–2692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Watt, M., et al. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ineligible for conventional aortic valve replacement. Heart, 98(5), 370–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Singer, L. G., Theodore, J., & Gould, M. K. (2003). Validity of standard gamble utilities as measured by transplant readiness in lung transplant candidates. Medical Decision Making, 23(5), 435–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nease, R. F, Jr, et al. (1995). Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA, 273(15), 1185–1190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Science and Medicine, 44(10), 1519–1530.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Doctor, J. N., Bleichrodt, H., & Lin, H. J. (2010). Health utility bias: A systematic review and meta-analytic evaluation. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 58–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gerard, K., Dobson, M., & Hall, J. (1993). Framing and labelling effects in health descriptions: Quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(1), 77–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Dr. A. Hussain is the recipient of a research fellow from the Norwegian Health Association.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Pb. 4950, Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Amjad I. Hussain, Jan Otto Beitnes, Lars Gullestad & Kjell I. Pettersen

  2. The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway

    Andrew M. Garratt

Authors
  1. Amjad I. Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew M. Garratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Otto Beitnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars Gullestad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kjell I. Pettersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amjad I. Hussain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hussain, A.I., Garratt, A.M., Beitnes, J.O. et al. Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement. Qual Life Res 25, 1703–1712 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1186-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1186-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation