Background: A disease-specific measure of functional health in syncope would provide an important outcome measure for use either in clinical trials or in the clinical management of patients with recurrent syncope.
Methods arid Measurements: In a previous study the authors used formal functional status measures to determine physical and psycho-social impairment in recurrent syncope. This study provides a preliminary assessment of a disease-specific measure of function. The measure was pilot tested on 84 subjects, and validated in a separate cohort of 49 patients. The measure consists of 1) an 11-question matrix of yes/no questions, assessing the ways that syncope interferes with a patient’s life (the result is expressed as a proportion of the total number of ways that syncope might interfere and is called the Impairment Score), and 2) three Likert-scale questions that assess the patient’s fear and worry about syncope. Correlations were obtained between scores on the disease-specific measure and other measures of functional health.
Results: Among the 49 patients in the test cohort, final scores on the disease-specific measure correlated with both physical and psycho-social dimension scores on a measure of functional status, the Sickness Impact Profile (r=0.35–0.36, p=0.01), and with five of ten subscale scores on a measure of psychological distress, the Symptom Checklist 90-R (r=0.30–0.43, p=0.004–0.02).
Conclusions: This new disease-specific quality-of-life measure in syncope measures both physical and psychosocial components of impairment and could be a valuable adjunct in measuring outcomes in syncope patients.
syncope clinical epidemiology functional status outcome measures
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Deyo R, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chron Dis. 1986;39:897–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyatt G, Walter S, Geoff N. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:171–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milstein S, Buetikofer J, Dunnigan A, Benditt DG, Gornick C, Reyes WJ. Usefulness of disopyramide for prevention of upright tilt-induced hypotension-bradycardia. Am J Cardiol. 1990;65:1339–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sra JS, Anderson AJ, Sheikh SH, et al. Unexplained syncope evaluated by electrophysiologic studies and head-up tilt testing. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:1012–9.Google Scholar
Muller T, Talajic RM, Nattel LS, Cassidy D. Electrophysiologic evaluation and outcome of patients with syncope of unknown origin. Eur Heart J. 1991;12:139–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lipsitz LA, Wei JY, Rowe JW. Syncope in an elderly, institutionalised population: prevalence, incidence, and associated risk. Q J Med. 1985;216:45–54.Google Scholar
Kapoor WN, Cha R, Peterson JR, Wieand HS, Karpf M. Prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring in patients with syncope. Am J Med. 1987;82:20–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazis LE, Meenan RF, Anderson JJ. Pain in the rheumatic diseases: investigation of a key health status component. Arthritis Rheum. 1982;26:1017–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson E, Conger B, Douglass R, et al. Functional health status levels of primary care patients. JAMA. 183:249:3331–8.Google Scholar
Wachtel T, Piette J, Mor V, Stein M, Fleishman J, Carpenter C. Quality of life in persons with immunodeficiency virus infection: measurement by the Medical Outcomes Study instrument. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:129–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Stewart A, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well being of patients with chronic conditions. JAMA. 1989;262:907–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar