Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 1703–1712 | Cite as

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

  • Amjad I. HussainEmail author
  • Andrew M. Garratt
  • Jan Otto Beitnes
  • Lars Gullestad
  • Kjell I. Pettersen
Article

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.

Keywords

Standard gamble Validity Utility Patient preferences Patient-reported outcomes Aortic valve replacement 

Notes

Funding

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

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reardon, M. J. (2012). Cost-effectiveness analysis of TAVR. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, 8(2), 26–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond, M. F., et al. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., & Feeny, D. (2002). Health utility estimation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gafni, A. (1994). The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Services Research, 29(2), 207–224.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karlsen, T. I., et al. (2011). Validity of the SF-36 in patients with morbid obesity. Obesity Facts, 4(5), 346–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brazier, J., et al. (2003). Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 3(3), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Charlson, M., et al. (1994). Validation of a combined comorbidity index. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(11), 1245–1251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dolan, P., et al. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carabello, B. A., & Paulus, W. J. (2009). Aortic stenosis. Lancet, 373(9667), 956–966.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 593–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making, 17(2), 208–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologyOslo University Hospital, RikshospitaletOsloNorway
  2. 2.The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health ServicesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations