Loading…

Regional differences in health-related quality of life in elderly heart failure patients: results from the CIBIS-ELD trial

Aim Patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are main treatment goals for heart failure (HF) and therefore endpoints in multinational therapy trials. However, little is known about country-specific differences in HRQoL and in treatment-associated HRQoL improvement. Th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical research in cardiology 2017-08, Vol.106 (8), p.645-655
Main Authors: Chavanon, Mira-Lynn, Inkrot, Simone, Zelenak, Christine, Tahirovic, Elvis, Stanojevic, Dragana, Apostolovic, Svetlana, Sljivic, Aleksandra, Ristic, Arsen D., Matic, Dragan, Loncar, Goran, Veskovic, Jovan, Zdravkovic, Marija, Lainscak, Mitja, Pieske, Burkert, Herrmann-Lingen, Christoph, Düngen, Hans-Dirk
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim Patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are main treatment goals for heart failure (HF) and therefore endpoints in multinational therapy trials. However, little is known about country-specific differences in HRQoL and in treatment-associated HRQoL improvement. The present work sought to examine those questions. Methods and results We analysed data from the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly (CIBIS-ELD) trial, in which patients from central and south-eastern Europe completed the HRQoL questionnaire SF-36 at baseline and the end of a 12-week beta-blocker up-titration (follow-up). 416 patients from Serbia (mean age 72.21 years, 69% NYHA-class I–II, 27.4% women) and 114 from Germany (mean age 73.64 years, 78.9% NYHA-class I–II, 47.4% women) were included. Controlling for clinical variables, the change in mental HRQoL from baseline to follow-up was modulated by Country: Serbian patients, M baseline = 37.85 vs. M follow−up = 40.99, t (526) = 5.34, p  
ISSN:1861-0684
1861-0692
DOI:10.1007/s00392-017-1101-6