Abstract
AimsGuidelines divide patients with heart failure (HF) into 3 distinct groups based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) We used the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to quantify the health-related quality of life in patients with HF.MethodsPatients were stratified into three cohorts: preserved LVEF (>50%), mid-range LVEF (40–49%) and reduced LVEF (<40%). The MLHFQ scores were evaluated using one-way ANOVA, and differences were observed among the groups. The association of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class with the physical scores was analyzed by Spearman’s correlation analysis. The predictive utility of the total MLHFQ scores was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves for death and HF-related hospitalization. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the risk factors for prognosis. Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s α.ResultsThere were significant differences in the total MLHFQ scores and the MLHFQ subscale scores among the three groups (p<0.05). MLHFQ domains demonstrated high internal consistency among the three groups (Cronbach’s α = 0.92, 0.96 and 0.93). The MLHFQ physical subscale scores were significantly associated with NYHA class in HFrEF (r = 0.59, p<0.001) and HFmrEF patients (r = 0.537, p<0.001). The survival analysis indicated that there was a significant difference among the three groups regarding high MLHFQ scores (p = 0.038). In the groups with low MLHFQ scores, the HFmrEF group exhibited significantly increased rates of death and HF-related hospitalization compared with the HFpEF group (p = 0.035).ConclusionsThe features and clinical outcomes varied among heart failure patients with different EF values. The MLHFQ appears to be a valid and reliable measurement of health status and offers excellent prognostic ability.
Highlights
The number of patients with heart failure is increasing due to the aging population and the therapeutic advancements that improve the survival of patients with heart diseases
The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) physical subscale scores were significantly associated with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in HFrEF (r = 0.59, p
The features and clinical outcomes varied among heart failure patients with different EF values
Summary
The number of patients with heart failure is increasing due to the aging population and the therapeutic advancements that improve the survival of patients with heart diseases. The features, triggers, prognosis, and response to therapy of patients with preserved EF are different from those with reduced EF. Some studies demonstrated that patients with preserved EF have a lower mortality rate and a lower hospitalization rate than those without[2, 4, 5]. Other clinical trials[6, 7] have reported opposite conclusions, reporting that patients with preserved EF may have worse prognosis in terms of hospitalization and mortality compared with those with reduced EF. The latest guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommended separating patients with heart failure into three distinct groups depending on their LVEF: preserved LVEF ( 50%), mid-range LVEF (40–49%), and reduced LVEF (
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
