Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 201–207 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life after coronary artery bypass grafting. The impact of a randomised controlled home-based intervention program

  • Irene LieEmail author
  • Harald Arnesen
  • Leiv Sandvik
  • Glenys Hamilton
  • Eli H. Bunch
Brief Communication



The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a home based intervention program (HBIP) on health related quality of life (HRQoL) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). To strengthen the clinical interpretation, HRQoL data were compared to the general population.


In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a total of 185 CABG patients (93 vs 92) completed the study. The intervention group received a HBIP 2 and 4 weeks after surgery. HRQoL was measured by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) in both patient groups before surgery, at 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery.


Significant improvements were found in both groups for the majority of subscales of HRQoL at 6-week and 6-month follow-up. However, these improvements did not differ significantly between the groups. Compared to the general population, significant differences (P < 0.05) were found for the SF-36 subscales: role physical, role emotional and bodily pain.


HRQoL after CABG improved markedly over time, but no significant or clinically important differences were found when compared with controls. Thus, work to further develop and test the effect of a HBIP on HRQoL in patients undergoing rehabilitation following CABG is warranted.


Coronary artery bypass grafting Hospital-based home care services Nursing care Quality of life Randomised controlled trial 


  1. 1.
    Norwegian Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons. (2006). Heart surgery in Norway 2006. Register of heart surgery.,1,. Heart surgery in Norway 2006 Norwegian Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons. Accessed 1 Apr 2008.
  2. 2.
    World Health Organisation. (1993). Needs and action priorities in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in patients with CHD. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kavanagh, T. (2000). Exercise in cardiac rehabilitation. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(1), 3. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.34.1.3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ades, P. A. (2001). Cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, 345(12), 892–902. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra001529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tranmer, J. E., & Parry, M. J. (2004). Enhancing postoperative recovery of cardiac surgery patients: A randomized clinical trial of an advanced practice nursing intervention. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 26(5), 515–532. doi: 10.1177/0193945904265690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnason, S., Zimmerman, L., Nieveen, J., Schmaderer, M., Carranza, B., & Reilly, S. (2003). Impact of a home communication intervention for coronary artery bypass graft patients with ischemic heart failure on self-efficacy, coronary disease risk factor modification, and functioning. Heart and Lung, 32(3), 147–158. doi: 10.1016/S0147-9563(03)00036-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnason, S., Zimmerman, L., Nieveen, J., & Hertzog, M. (2006). Impact of a telehealth intervention to augment home health care on functional and recovery outcomes of elderly patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Heart and Lung, 35(4), 225–233. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2005.10.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oldenburg, B., Martin, A., Greenwood, J., Bernstein, L., & Allan, R. (1995). A controlled trial of a behavioral and educational intervention following coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, 15(1), 39–46. doi: 10.1097/00008483-199501000-00006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevey, D., Brown, A., Cahill, A., Newton, H., Kierns, M., & Horgan, J. H. (2003). Four-week multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation produces similar improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life to a 10-week program. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, 23(1), 17–21. doi: 10.1097/00008483-200301000-00004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arthur, H. M., Smith, K. M., Kodis, J., & McKelvie, R. (2002). A controlled trial of hospital versus home-based exercise in cardiac patients. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(10), 1544–1550. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200210000-00003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jolly, K., Taylor, R., Lip, G. Y., Greenfield, S., Raftery, J., Mant, J., et al. (2007). The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: Cost-effectiveness and patient adherence. Health Technology Assessment, 11(35), 1–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGillion, M., Watt-Watson, J., Kim, J., & Yamada, J. (2004). A systematic review of psychoeducational intervention trials for the management of chronic stable angina. Journal of Nursing Management, 12(3), 174–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lie, I., Arnesen, H., Sandvik, L., Hamilton, G., & Bunch, E. H. (2007). Effects of a home-based intervention program on anxiety and depression 6 months after coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 62(4), 411–418. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.11.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hays, R. D. (2005). Generic versus disease-targeted instruments. In R. D. Hays & P. M. Fayers (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 3–9). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spertus, J. A., Winder, J. A., Dewhurst, T. A., Deyo, R. A., & Fihn, S. D. (1994). Monitoring the quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. The American Journal of Cardiology, 74(12), 1240–1244. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(94)90555-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 Health Survey. Manual and interpretation guide (2nd ed.). Boston: New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spertus, J. A., Winder, J. A., Dewhurst, T. A., Deyo, R. A., Prodzinski, J., McDonell, M., et al. (1995). Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: A new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25(2), 333–341. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(94)00397-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-36 Health Survey (standard and acute forms) (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Falcoz, P. E., Chocron, S., Mercier, M., Puyraveau, M., & Etievent, J. P. (2002). Comparison of the Nottingham health profile and the 36-item health survey questionnaires in cardiac surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 73(4), 1222–1228. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03371-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindsay, G. M., Hanlon, P., Smith, L. N., & Wheatley, D. J. (2000). Assessment of changes in general health status using the short-form 36 questionnaire 1 year following coronary artery bypass grafting. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 18(5), 557–564. doi: 10.1016/S1010-7940(00)00542-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr, Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaccarino, V., Lin, Z. Q., Kasl, S. V., Mattera, J. A., Roumanis, S. A., Abramson, J. L., et al. (2003). Sex differences in health status after coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation, 108(21), 2642–2647. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000097117.28614.D8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, Z., Mahoney, E. M., Stables, R. H., Booth, J., Nugara, F., Spertus, J. A., et al. (2003). Disease-specific health status after stent-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery: One-year results from the stent or surgery trial. Circulation, 108(14), 1694–1700. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000087600.83707.FD.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conaway, D. G., House, J., Bandt, K., Hayden, L., Borkon, A. M., & Spertus, J. A. (2003). The elderly: Health status benefits and recovery of function one year after coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 42(8), 1421–1426. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)01052-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bjorner, J. B., Wallenstein, G. V., Martin, M. C., Lin, P., Blaisdell-Gross, B., Tak, P. C., et al. (2007). Interpreting score differences in the SF-36 Vitality scale: Using clinical conditions and functional outcomes to define the minimally important difference. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23(4), 731–739. doi: 10.1185/030079907X178757.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd ed.). England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cella, D. (2000). Discussion of issues concerning the quality of life in cancer patients. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine, 14, 95–97. doi: 10.2165/00124363-200004000-00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vickers, A. J. (2001). The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: A simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 1, 6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-1-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vickers, A. J., & Altman, D. G. (2001). Statistics notes: Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed), 323(7321), 1123–1124. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hjermstad, M. J., Fayers, P. M., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Using reference data on quality of life—the importance of adjusting for age and gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3). European Journal of Cancer, 34(9), 1381–1389. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(98)00136-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Borkon, A. M., Muehlebach, G. F., House, J., Marso, S. P., & Spertus, J. A. (2002). A comparison of the recovery of health status after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 74(5), 1526–1530. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04063-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gjeilo, K. H., Wahba, A., Klepstad, P., Lydersen, S., & Stenseth, R. (2006). Health-related quality of life three years after coronary surgery: A comparison with the general population. Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal, 40(1), 29–36. doi: 10.1080/14017430500339321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hawkes, A. L., Nowak, M., & Speare, R. (2003). Short Form-36 Health Survey as an evaluation tool for cardiac rehabilitation programs: Is it appropriate? Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, 23(1), 22–25. doi: 10.1097/00008483-200301000-00005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Visser, M. R., Oort, F. J., & Sprangers, M. A. (2005). Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: A convergent validity study. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 629–639. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-2577-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith, K. M., Arthur, H. M., McKelvie, R. S., & Kodis, J. (2004). Differences in sustainability of exercise and health-related quality of life outcomes following home or hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, 11(4), 313–319. doi: 10.1097/01.hjr.0000136414.40017.10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Favarato, M. E., Hueb, W., Boden, W. E., Lopes, N., Nogueira, C. R., Takiuti, M., et al. (2007). Quality of life in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease: A comparative post hoc analyses of medical, angioplasty or surgical strategies—MASS II trial. International Journal of Cardiology, 116(3), 364–370. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.06.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Lie
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Harald Arnesen
    • 3
  • Leiv Sandvik
    • 4
  • Glenys Hamilton
    • 5
  • Eli H. Bunch
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Nursing ResearchUllevål University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Cardiothoracic SurgeryUllevål University HospitalOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyUllevål University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Center for Clinical ResearchUllevål University HospitalOsloNorway
  5. 5.ConsultantUllevål University HospitalOsloNorway
  6. 6.Institute of Nursing and Health ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations