Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are all outcomes in chronic heart failure rated equally? An argument for a patient-centred approach to outcome assessment

  • Published:
Heart Failure Reviews Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a multi-dimensional and complex syndrome. Outcome measures are important for determining both the efficacy and quality of care and capturing the patient’s perspective in evaluating the outcomes of health care delivery. Capturing the patient’s perspective via patient-reported outcomes is increasingly important; however, including objective measures such as mortality would provide more complete account of outcomes important to patients. Currently, no single measure for CHF outcomes captures all dimensions of the quality of care from the patient’s perspective. To describe the role of outcome measures in CHF from the perspective of patients, a structured literature review was undertaken. This review discusses the concepts and methodological issues related to measurement of CHF outcomes. Outcome assessment at the level of the patient, provider and health care system were identified as being important. The perspectives of all stakeholders should be considered when developing an outcomes measurement suite to inform CHF health care. This paper recommends that choice of outcome measures should depend on their ability to provide a comprehensive, comparable, meaningful and accurate assessment that are important to patient.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clark RA, McLennan S, Dawson A, Wilkinson D, Stewart S (2004) Uncovering a hidden epidemic: a study of the current burden of heart failure in Australia. Heart Lung Circ 13:266–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Krum H, Abraham WT (2009) Heart failure. Lancet 373:941–955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, Wells K, Rogers WH et al (1989) Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 262:907–913

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jeon Y-H, Kraus S, Jowsey T, Glasgow N (2010) The experience of living with chronic heart failure: a narrative review of qualitative studies. BMC Health Serv Res 10:77

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pattenden JF, Roberts H, Lewin RJP (2007) Living with heart failure; patient and carer perspectives. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 6:273–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG (1996) Does increased access to primary care reduce hospital readmissions? N Engl J Med 334:1441–1447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Normand C (2009) Measuring outcomes in palliative care: Limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J Pain Symptom Manage 38:27–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davidson P, Cockburn J, Daly J, Fisher R (2004) Patient-centred needs assessment: rationale for a psychometric measure for assessing needs in heart failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs 19:162–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Allen LA, Hernandez AF, O’Connor CM, Felker GM (2009) End points for clinical trials in acute heart failure syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:2248–2258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Anand IS, Florea VG (2010) End points in chronic heart failure clinical trials. Dialogues Cardiovasc Med 15:81–102

    Google Scholar 

  11. Neaton JD, Gray G, Zuckerman BD, Konstam MA (2005) Key issues in end point selection for heart failure trials: composite end points. J Cardiac Fail 11:567–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zannad F, Stough WG, Pitt B, Cleland JGF, Adams KF et al (2008) Heart failure as an endpoint in heart failure and non-heart failure cardiovascular clinical trials: the need for a consensus definition. Eur Heart J 29:413–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kleinpell RM (1997) Whose outcomes, patients, providers, or payers? Nurs Clin N Am 32:513–520

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Doward LC, Gnanasakthy A, Baker MG (2010) Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim. Health Qual Life Outcomes 8(1):89

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gabriel SE, Normand S-LT (2012) Getting the methods right—the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. N Engl J Med 367:787–790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook D (2008) Users’ guides to the medical literature: essentials of evidence-based clinical practice New York. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, NY

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 324:370–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee WC, Chavez YE, Baker T, Luce BR (2004) Economic burden of heart failure: a summary of recent literature. Heart Lung 33:362–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Radford M (2005) ACC/AHA key data elements and definitions for measuring the clinical management and outcomes of patients with chronic heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical data standards (Writing Committee to Develop Heart Failure Clinical Data Standards). J Am Coll Cardiol 46:1179–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lohr KN (1988) Outcome measurement: concepts and questions. Inquiry 25:37–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohn J, Cleland JGF, Lubsen J, Borer JS, Steg PG et al (2009) Unconventional end points in cardiovascular clinical trials: should we be moving away from morbidity and mortality? J Cardiac Fail 15:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yusuf S, Negassa A (2002) Choice of clinical outcomes in randomized trials of heart failure therapies: disease-specific or overall outcomes? Am Heart J 143:22–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Walsh MN, Bove AA, Cross RR, Ferdinand KC, Forman DE et al (2012) ACCF 2012 health policy statement on patient-centered care in cardiovascular medicine: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Quality Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:2125–2143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patrick D (2003) Patient reported outcomes: an organising tool for concepts, measures, and applications. Qual Life Newsl 31:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rector TS, Tschumperlin LK, Kubo SH, Bank AJ, Francis GS et al (1995) Use of the living with heart failure questionnaire to ascertain patients’ perspectives on improvement in quality of life versus risk of drug-induced death. J Cardiac Fail 1:201–206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. United States Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry (2009) Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf

  27. Chang S, Gholizadeh L, Salamonson Y, Digiacomo M, Betihavas V et al (2011) Health span or life span: the role of patient-reported outcomes in informing health policy. Health Policy 100:96–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Erickson P (2004) A health outcomes framework for assessing health status and quality of life: enhanced data for decision making. JNCI Monogr 2004(33):168–177

  29. Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R (2005) The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 60:833–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. World Health Organization (2003) Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  31. Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, Russell AS, Skeith K (2001) Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health status by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making 21:113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P (2004) Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials 25:535–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Spertus JA (2008) Evolving applications for patient-centered health status measures. Circulation 118:2103–2110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Stevenson LW et al (2001) Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med 345:1435–1443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chang S, Davidson PM, Newton PJ, Krum H, Salamonson Y, Macdonald P (2012) What is the methodological and reporting quality of health related quality of life in chronic heart failure clinical trials? Int J Cardiol. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.01.019

  36. Leidy N, Vernon M (2008) Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics 26:363–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Luo X, Cappelleri JC (2008) A practical guide on incorporating and evaluating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. Clin Res Regul Aff 25:197–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson N (2002) Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life—a European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J 36:209–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hakamies-Blomqvist L, Luoma ML, Sjöström J, Pluzanska A, Sjödin M et al (2001) Timing of quality of life (QoL) assessments as a source of error in oncological trials. J Adv Nurs 35:709–716

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, Barofsky I, Berzon R et al (2000) Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 9:887–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB (2007) Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 66:iii40–iii41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Spertus JA, Conard MW, Rinaldi J, Tsuyuki R, Krumholz H et al (2002) The Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire is sensitive to clinical change in congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 39(Supplement 2):460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Caughey GE, Roughead EE, Shakib S, Vitry AI, Gilbert AL (2011) Co-morbidity and potential treatment conflicts in elderly heart failure patients: a retrospective, cross-sectional study of administrative claims data. Drugs Aging 28:575–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jennings BM, Staggers N, Brosch LR (1999) A classification scheme for outcome indicators. J Nurs Scholarsh 31:381–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Opasich C, Gualco A, De Feo S, Barbieri M, Cioffi G et al (2008) Physical and emotional symptom burden of patients with end-stage heart failure: what to measure, how and why. J cardiovasc Med 9:1104–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Liao L, Allen LA, Whellan DJ (2008) Economic burden of heart failure in the elderly. Pharmacoeconomics 26:447–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bleumink GS, Knetsch AM, Sturkenboom MCJM, Straus SMJM, Hofman A et al (2004) Quantifying the heart failure epidemic: prevalence, incidence rate, lifetime risk and prognosis of heart failure—the Rotterdam Study. Eur Heart J 25:1614–1619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yusuf S, Reddy S, Ounpuu S, Anand S (2001) Global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Circulation 104:2855–2864

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Buzney EA, Kimball AB (2008) A critical assessment of composite and coprimary endpoints: a complex problem. J Am Acad Dermatol 59:890–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Moyé LA (2003) Introduction to composite endpoint multiple analyses in clinical trials: fundamentals for investigators. Springer, New York, pp 219–238

    Google Scholar 

  51. Chi GYH (2005) Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 19:609–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C (2003) Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 289:2554–2559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bethel MA, Holman R, Haffner SM, Califf RM, Huntsman-Labed A et al (2008) Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome. Am Heart J 156:633–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Packer M (2001) Proposal for a new clinical end point to evaluate the efficacy of drugs and devices in the treatment of chronic heart failure. J Cardiac Fail 7:176–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Cleland JGF (2002) How to assess new treatments for the management of heart failure: composite scoring systems to assess the patients’ clinical journey. Eur J Heart Fail 4:243–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Braunwald E, Cannon CP, McCabe CH (1992) An approach to evaluating thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: the ‘unsatisfactory outcome’ end point. Circulation 86:683–687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, Carson P, D’Agostino R Jr et al (2004) Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure. N Engl J Med 351:2049–2057

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Felker GM, Anstrom KJ, Rogers JG (2008) A global ranking approach to end points in trials of mechanical circulatory support devices. J Cardiac Fail 14:368–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tukey JW (1979) Methodology, and the statistician’s responsibility for BOTH accuracy AND relevance. J Am Stat Assoc 74:786–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Long AF, Dixon P (1996) Monitoring outcomes in routine practice: defining appropriate measurement criteria. J Eval Clin Pract 2:71–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Davies HTO, Crombie IK (1997) Interpreting health outcomes. J Eval Clin Pract 3:187–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Epping-Jordan JE, Pruitt SD, Bengoa R, Wagner EH (2004) Improving the quality of health care for chronic conditions. Qual Saf Health Care 13:299–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Sears SF, Sowell LV, Kuhl EA, Handberg EM, Kron J et al (2006) Quality of death: implantable cardioverter defibrillators and proactive care. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 29:637–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Long AF (1997) Key issues in outcomes measurement. Int J STD AIDS 8:663–667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cowley AJ, Skene AM, Enoximone Investigators (1994) Treatment of severe heart failure: quantity or quality of life? A trial of enoximone. Br Heart J 72:226–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Clifford S, Barber N, Elliott R, Hartley E, Horne R (2006) Patient-centred advice is effective in improving adherence to medicines. Pharm World Sci 28:165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ganz PAMD (2002) What outcomes matter to patients: a physician-researcher point of view. Med Care 40(6):11–19

    Google Scholar 

  68. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L et al (2005) Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases. JAMA 294:716–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Zanolla L, Zardini P (2003) Selection of endpoints for heart failure clinical trials. Eur J Heart Fail 5:717–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, Raisch D (2009) The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health 12:S27–S30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Carr-Hill RA (1991) Allocating resources to health care: is the QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) a technical solution to a political problem? Int J Health Serv 21:351–363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Cote I, Gregoire JP, Moisan J (2000) Health-related quality-of-life measurement in hypertension: a review of randomised controlled drug trials. Pharmacoeconomics 18:435–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Gohler A, Conrads-Frank A, Worrell SS, Geisler BP, Halpern EF et al (2008) Decision-analytic evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management programmes in chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 10:1026–1032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Stewart S, Jenkins A, Buchan S, McGuire A, Capewell S et al (2002) The current cost of heart failure to the National Health Service in the UK. Eur J Heart Fail 4:361–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Krumholz HM (2004) The year in health care delivery and outcomes research. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1130–1136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Van den Block L, Deschepper R, Drieskens K, Bauwens S, Bilsen J et al (2007) Hospitalisations at the end of life: using a sentinel surveillance network to study hospital use and associated patient, disease and healthcare factors. BMC Health Serv Res 7:69–78

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kozma C, Reeder C, Schulz R (1993) Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther 15:1121–1132

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien B, Stoddard GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM et al (2007) Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol 60:651–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

Ms S. Chang, Drs P. Newton, S. Inglis, T. Luckett., Profs H. Krum, P. Macdonald and P. Davidson have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Science, Curtin University, Sydney, Australia

    Sungwon Chang

  2. School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia

    Sungwon Chang

  3. Centre for Cardiovascular and Chronic Care, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Phillip J. Newton, Sally Inglis & Patricia M. Davidson

  4. Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Tim Luckett

  5. Improving Palliative Care through Clinical Trials (IMPACC) and South West Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Tim Luckett

  6. Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Henry Krum

  7. Heart Failure and Transplant Unit, St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia

    Peter Macdonald

  8. St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, University of New South Wales, Darlinghurst, Australia

    Patricia M. Davidson

Authors
  1. Sungwon Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phillip J. Newton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sally Inglis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tim Luckett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henry Krum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Macdonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patricia M. Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sungwon Chang.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, S., Newton, P.J., Inglis, S. et al. Are all outcomes in chronic heart failure rated equally? An argument for a patient-centred approach to outcome assessment. Heart Fail Rev 19, 153–162 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-012-9369-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-012-9369-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation