Quality of Life Research

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 199–212 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease treated for angina: Validity and reliability of German translations of two specific questionnaires

  • S. Höfer
  • W. Benzer
  • G. Schüßler
  • N. von Steinbüchel
  • N.B. Oldridge


The German versions of two patient-perceived heart disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the MacNew Heart Disease questionnaire, were examined for their psychometric properties in patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and angina who were treated either medically or invasively and followed up for 1 year. Both HRQL questionnaires and the modified Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina-associated disability scale were completed by 158 patients at baseline and 12 months later when they also completed a generic health status questionnaire, the SF-36. Both specific HRQL questionnaires were acceptable to patients. Three of the four MacNew scales, but none of the SAQ scales, discriminated between patients by baseline CCS disability levels I and IV. Internal consistency ranged from 0.75 to 0.94 for the SAQ and from 0.86 to 0.97 for the MacNew scales. Test–retest reliability over a 4-week period of time ranged from 0.45 to 0.81 for the SAQ scales and 0.61 to 0.68 for the MacNew scales. Over 12 months, HRQL improved (p > 0.001) on three of the five SAQ and on all four of the MacNew scales with the responsiveness statistic ranging from 0.59 to 1.55 for the SAQ and 0.86 to 1.12 for the MacNew. The 12 month scores on all SAQ and MacNew scales were significantly higher in patients who improved than those who deteriorated on the SF-36 reported health transition question. We conclude that the SAQ and the MacNew are both valid, reliable, and responsive in German, that the MacNew discriminates better between angina grades at baseline, that HRQL improves over 12 months with both measures, that the SAQ angina frequency and disease perception scales have the largest effect sizes, and that the 12-month change in HRQL with both instruments was associated with change in SF-36 reported health transition status.

Angina Coronary heart disease Health-related quality of life Health status Questionnaires Reliability Responsiveness Validity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1991 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1262–1347.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schipper H, Clinch J, Olweny CLM. Quality of life studies: Definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker B (eds), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 11–23.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ware JE Jr. The status of health assessment 1994. Annu Rev Public Health 1995; 16: 327–354.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bliven BD, Green CP, Spertus JA. Review of available instruments and methods for assessing quality of life in antianginal trials. Drugs Aging 1998; 13: 311–320.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW. Review of quality-of-life evaluations in patients with angina pectoris. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 141–152.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wahrborg P, on behalf of the CABRI Trialists. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery. 1-year follow-up in the Coronary Angioplasty versus. Bypass Revascularization investigation (CABRI) trial. Eur Heart J 1999; 20: 653–658.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hlatky MA, Rogers WJ, Johnstone I, et al. Medical care costs and quality of life after randomization to coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. New Engl J Med 1997; 336: 92–99.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Westin L, Carlsson R, Israelson B, Willenheimer R, Cline C, McNeil TF. Quality of life in patients with ischaemic heart disease: A prospective controlled study. J Intern Med 1997; 242: 239–247.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, et al. Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: A new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25: 333–341.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Fihn SD. Monitoring the quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 1240–1244.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dempster M, Donnelly M. Measuring the health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease. Heart 2000; 83: 641–644.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dougherty CM, Dewhurst T, Nichol WP, Spertus J. Comparison of three quality of life instruments in stable angina pectoris: Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Quality of Life Index-Cardiac Version III. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 569–575.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oldridge N, Guyatt G, Jones N, et al. Effects on quality of life with comprehensive rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1991; 67: 1084–1089.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hillers TK, Guyatt GH, Oldridge N, et al. Quality of life after myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 1287–1296.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim LL-Y, Valenti LA, Knapp JC, et al. A self-administered quality of life questionnaire after acute myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1249–1256.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valenti L, Lim L, Heller RF, Knapp J. An improved questionnaire for assessing quality of life after myocardial infarction. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 151–161.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burkhoff D, Schmidt S, Schulman SP, et al. Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: A prospective randomised trial. ATLANTIC Investigators. Angina Treatments-Lasers and Normal Therapies in Comparison. Lancet 1999; 354: 885–890.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seto TB, Taira DA, Berezin R, et al. Percutaneous coronary revascularization in elderly patients: Impact on functional status and quality of life. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 955–958.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spertus JA, Dewhurst T, Dougherty CM, Nichol P. Testing the effectiveness of converting patients to long-acting antianginal medications: The Quality of Life in Angina Research Trial (QUART). Am Heart J 2001; 141: 550–558.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horvath KA, Aranki SF, Cohn LH, et al. Sustained angina relief 5 years after transmyocardial laser revascularization with a CO(2) laser. Circulation 2001; 104: 181–184.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foster C, Oldridge NB, Dion W, et al. Time course of recovery during cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiopulmonary Rehabil 1995; 15: 209–215.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lim LL-Y, Johnson NA, O'Connell RL, Heller RF. Quality of life and later adverse health outcomes in patients with suspected heart attack. Aust NZ J Pub Health 1998; 22: 540–546.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brotons Cuixart C, Ribera Sole A, Permanyer Miralda G, et al. Adaptation of the MacNew QLMI quality of life questionnaire after myocardial infarction to be used in the Spanish population (in Spanish). Med Clin (Barc) 2000; 115: 768–771.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McConnell TR, Laubach CA, Memon M, Gardner JK, Klinger TA, Palm RJ. Quality of life and self-efficacy in cardiac rehabilitation patients over 70 years of age following acute myocardial infarction and bypass revascularization surgery. Am J Geriatric Cardiol 2000; 9: 210–218.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dixon T, Lim LL, Heller RF. Quality of life: An index for identifying high-risk cardiac patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 952–960.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dixon T, Lim L, Oldridge N. The MacNew health-related quality of life instrument: Reference data for users. Qual Life Research 2002; 11: 173–183.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jenkinson C. Quality of life measurement: Does it have a place in routine clinical assessment? J Psychosom Res 1994; 38: 377–381.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cox JL, Naylor CD, Johnstone DE. Limitations of Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification of angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 276–277.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conway K, Uzun V, Spertus J, Fletcher A, Sagnier P. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) in 11 countries (abstract). Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 581.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ware JE Jr, Keller SD, Gandek B, Brazier JE, Sullivan M. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 525–551.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heller RF, Lim L, Valenti L, Knapp J. Predictors of quality of life after hospital admission for heart attack or angina. Int J Cardiol 1997; 59: 161–166.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oldridge N, Perkins A, Marchionni N, Fumagalli S, Fattirolli F, Guyatt G. The number-needed-to-treat: Cardiac rehabilitation as an example. J Cardiopulmon Rehabil 2002; 22: 22–30.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campeau L. Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation 1976; 54: 522–523.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krumholz HM, McHorney CA, Clark L, Levesque M, Baim DS, Goldman L. Changes in health after elective percutaneous coronary revascularization. A comparison of generic and specific measures. Med Care 1996; 34: 754–759.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989; 262: 925–930.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25: 3130–3139.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nunnally J. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Cont Clin Trials 1991; 12: 142S–158S.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1988.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178–S189.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28: 632–642.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171–178.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459–468.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Clayton T, Lyman GH, Chamberlain DA. Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or continued medical treatment for angina: Three-year follow-up in the RITA-2 trial. Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 907–914Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garratt AM, Hutchinson A, Russell I. TheUKversion of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-UK): Reliability, validity and responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 907–915.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1995.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hevey D, McGee HM. The effect size statistic. Useful in health outcomes research? J Health Psychol 1998; 3: 163–170.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. Br Med J 1998; 316: 690–693.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Oldridge N, Gottlieb M, Guyatt G, Jones N, Streiner D, Feeny D. Predictors of health-related quality of life with cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1998; 18: 95–103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Höfer
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. Benzer
    • 1
  • G. Schüßler
    • 2
  • N. von Steinbüchel
    • 3
    • 5
  • N.B. Oldridge
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Interventional CardiologyAcademic Hospital FeldkirchAustria
  2. 2.Department of Medical Psychology and PsychotherapyUniversity Hospital of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.Department of Medical PsychologyLudwig-Maximilians UniversityMunichGermany
  4. 4.IU Center for Aging Research, Schools of Medicine and Allied Health SciencesIndiana UniversityUSA
  5. 5.Department of General PsychologyOtto v. Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  6. 6.Regenstrief Institute for Health CareIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations