Quality of Life Research

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1069–1078 | Cite as

Responsiveness of the coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire compared with the SF-36 and Seattle Angina Questionnaire

Article

Abstract

We describe a comparison of the responsiveness of three validated instruments when used with patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and angioplasty (PTCA). Patients were randomly selected to receive the Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ), and either the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), or the SF-36 before and 3 months after coronary revascularisation. At total of 199 patients (127 CABG, 72 PTCA) completed the CROQ; 55/72 CABG and 34/38 PTCA patients also completed the SAQ or SF-36, respectively. Effect sizes and standardised response means were calculated as change over the 3-month period for scales measuring similar constructs on each instrument. We used bootstrap estimation to derive 95% confidence intervals for differences in the responsiveness indices. For CABG, the CROQ demonstrated significantly greater change in psychosocial functioning than the SF-36, but less than the SAQ. For PTCA, the CROQ showed greater change for symptoms than the SAQ, but the SAQ was more responsive in terms of physical functioning; and the CROQ showed significantly greater change than the SF-36 for psychosocial functioning. There were no other significant differences between similar scales on the three instruments. In conclusion, the CROQ was as responsive as the disease-specific SAQ and more responsive than the generic SF-36.

Keywords

Angioplasty Coronary artery bypass grafting Quality of life Questionnaire Responsiveness 

Abbreviations

CABG

coronary artery bypass grafting

CRQQ

Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire

ES

effect size

MCS

SF-36 Mental Component Summary score

PCS

SF-36 Physical Component Summary score

PTCA

percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, now also known as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)

SAQ

Seattle Angina Questionnaire

SF-36

MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey

SRM

standardised response mean

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McCarthy, MJ, Shroyer, AL, Sethi, GK,  et al. 1995Self-report measures for assessing treatment outcomes in cardiac surgery patientsMed Care337685Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krumholz, HM, McHorney, CA, Clark, L, Levesque, M, Baim, DS, Goldman, L 1996Changes in health after elective percutaneous coronary revascularisation: A comparison of generic and specific measuresMed Care34754759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindsay, GM, Hanlon, P, Smith, LN, Wheatley, DJ 2000Assessment of changes in general health status using the short-form 36 questionnaire 1 year following coronary artery bypass graftingEur J Cardiothorac Surg18557564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seto, TB, Taira, DA, Berezin, R,  et al. 2000Percutaneous coronary revascularisation in elderly patients: Impact on functional status and quality of lifeAnn Intern Med132955958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caine, N, Harrison, SC, Sharples, LD, Wallwork, J 1991Prospective study of quality of life before and after coronary artery bypass graftingBr Med J302511516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pocock, SJ, Henderson, RA, Seed, P, Treasure, T, Hampton, JR 1996Quality of life, employment status, and anginal symptoms after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery: 3-year follow-up in the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trialCirculation94135142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wahrborg on behalf of the CABRI Trialists P.1999Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgeryEur Heart J20653658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engbolm, E, Hamalainen, H, Lind, J,  et al. 1992Quality of life during rehabilitation after coronary artery bypass surgeryQual Life Res1167175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fruitman, DS, MacDougall, CE, Ross, DB 1999Cardiac surgery in octogenarians: Can elderly patients benefit? Quality of life after cardiac surgeryAnn Thorac Surg6821292135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacDonald, P, Stadnyk, K, Cossett, J, Klassen, G, Johnstone, D, Rockwood, K 1998Outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly peopleCan J Cardiol1412151222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spertus, JA, Winder, JA, Dewhurst, TA, Deyo, RA, Fihn, SD 1994Monitoring the quality of life in patients with coronary artery diseaseAm J Cardiol7412401244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patrick, DL, Deyo, RA 1989Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of lifeMed Care27217232Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spertus, JA, Winder, JA, Dewhurst, TA,  et al. 1995Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: A new functional status measure for coronary artery diseaseJ Am Coll Cardiol25333341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schroter, S, Lamping, DL 2004Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ): Development and validation of a new, patient based measure of outcome in coronary bypass surgery and angioplastyHeart9014601466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hays, RD, Anderson, R, Revicki, D 1993Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measuresQual Life Res2441449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deyo, RA, Diehr, P, Patrick, DL 1991Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: Statistics and strategies for evaluationControl Clin Trials12142158Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, J 1977Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Revised Ed.Academic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kazis, LE, Anderson, JJ, Meenan, RF 1989Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health statusMed Care27178189Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liang, MH, Fossel, AH, Larson, MG 1990Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopaedic evaluationMed Care28632642PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guyatt, GH 1987Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instrumentsJ Chronic Dis40171178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Husted, JA, Cook, RJ, Farewell, VT, Gladman, DD 2000Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendationsJ Clin Epidemiol53459468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dempster, M, Donnelly, M 2000Measuring the health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart diseaseHeart83641644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ware, JE, Snow, KK, Kosinski, M, Gandek, B 1993SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guideThe Health Institute, New England Medical CentreBostonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware, JE, Kosinski, MA, Keller, SD 1994SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Summary Measures: a User’s ManualThe Health Institute New England Medical CenterBostonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Office of Population Censuses and Surveys1991Standard Occupational Classification. Vol 3. Social Classifications and Coding MethodologyHMSOLondonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weintraub, WS, Mauldin, PD, Becker, E, Kosinski, AS, King, SB 1995A comparison of the costs of and quality of life after coronary angioplasty or coronary surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: Results from the Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST)Circulation9228312840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hays, RD, Anderson, RT, Revicki, D 1998

    Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials

    Staquet, MJHays, RDFayers, PM eds. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methods and practiceOxford University PressNew York169182
    Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Erickson, P 2000Assessment of the evaluative properties of health status instrumentsMed Care389599Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright, JG, Young, NL 1997A comparison of different indices of responsivenessJ Clin Epidemiol50239246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fayers, PM, Machin, D 2000Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and InterpretationJohn Wiley & Sons LtdChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Services Research UnitLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  2. 2.BMJ Editorial OfficeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations