dc.contributor.author | PETERSEN, SE | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kwong, E | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Neuburger, J | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Black, N | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-12-07T14:35:43Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-11-12 | en_US |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-11-19T10:07:46.847Z | |
dc.identifier.citation | Kwong E, Neuburger J, Petersen SE, et al Using patient-reported outcome measures for primary percutaneous coronary intervention Open Heart 2019;6:e000920. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000920
Methods Patients admitted with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to five percutaneous coronary intervention centres were invited to complete a retrospective questionnaire containing the EQ-5D-3L and short form Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7). Response rate for a 3-month mailed follow-up questionnaire and potential response biases were assessed. Patients’ outcomes were compared with their baseline using χ2 and paired t-test to assess for differences.
Results Of 392 patients contacted, 260 (66.3%) responded. Responders were more likely to be older, female, more affluent and have a higher EQ-5D at baseline. Three months after surgery, patients’ SAQ-7 and angina symptom subscale returned to their baseline score. The physical limitation subscale score was worse than at baseline (79.9 vs 73.2, p=0.002), whereas the quality-of-life subscale was better (66.6 vs 73.9; p<0.001). The EQ-5D-3L index score was similar at 3 months to baseline (0.82 vs 0.79). Evidence of bias arising from responders being in better general health at baseline needs further investigation and, if confirmed, needs to be taken into account in interpreting PROMs data.
Conclusion It is feasible to use PROMs routinely to assess the impact of emergency admissions of patients with STEMI. A larger demonstration project with more sites is needed to confirm these findings. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2053-3624 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/53549 | |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction: Routine measurement of the outcome of myocardial infarction is usually limited to immediate morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to determine the response to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 3 months later, identify response bias and explore the feasibility of comparing outcome with their recalled view of their prior health state.
Methods: Patients admitted with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to five percutaneous coronary intervention centres were invited to complete a retrospective questionnaire containing the EQ-5D-3L and short form Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7). Response rate for a 3-month mailed follow-up questionnaire and potential response biases were assessed. Patients’ outcomes were compared with their baseline using χ2 and paired t-test to assess for differences.
Results: Of 392 patients contacted, 260 (66.3%) responded. Responders were more likely to be older, female, more affluent and have a higher EQ-5D at baseline. Three months after surgery, patients’ SAQ-7 and angina symptom subscale returned to their baseline score. The physical limitation subscale score was worse than at baseline (79.9 vs 73.2, p=0.002), whereas the quality-of-life subscale was better (66.6 vs 73.9; p<0.001). The EQ-5D-3L index score was similar at 3 months to baseline (0.82 vs 0.79). Evidence of bias arising from responders being in better general health at baseline needs further investigation and, if confirmed, needs to be taken into account in interpreting PROMs data.
Conclusion: It is feasible to use PROMs routinely to assess the impact of emergency admissions of patients with STEMI. A larger demonstration project with more sites is needed to confirm these findings. | |
dc.description.sponsorship | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Barts Health NHS Trust.
EK is funded by Economic & Social Research Council doctoral fellowship. Grant Reference: ES/J500021/1. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | BMJ Publishing Group | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Open Heart | en_US |
dc.rights | CC BY | |
dc.title | Using patient-reported outcome measures for primary percutaneous coronary intervention | en_US |
dc.title.alternative | Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary percutaneous coronary intervention | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.rights.holder | © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000920 | |
pubs.notes | Not known | en_US |
pubs.publication-status | Accepted | en_US |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2018-11-12 | en_US |
qmul.funder | Biomedical Research Unit at Barts (CVBRU)::NIHR | en_US |