Validation of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire in Primary Care

Naveiro-Rilo, J.C.; Diez-Juárez, D.; Blanco, Agustín Romero; Rebollo-Gutiérrez, Francisco; Rodríguez-Martínez, Ana B.; Rodríguez-García, Miguel Ángel

doi:10.1016/s1885-5857(10)70276-0

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The QOL was assessed at the baseline visit using the Spanish version of an HF-specific questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), 12 which is widely used 13 and has been prospectively validated in Spain 14, 15. The MLHFQ consists of 21 questions and evaluates the impact of HF on the physical, psychological, and social aspects of patients' lives.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comorbidities, Fragility, and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction

Gastelurrutia

Lupón

Moliner

et al. 2018

Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of comorbidities, fragility, and quality of life (QOL) on long-term prognosis in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) with midrange left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF), an unexplored area.Patients and MethodsConsecutive patients prospectively evaluated at an HF clinic between August 1, 2001, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively analyzed on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction category. We compared patients with HFmrEF (n=185) to those with reduced (HFrEF; n=1058) and preserved (HFpEF; n=162) ejection fraction. Fragility was defined as 1 or more abnormal evaluations on 4 standardized geriatric scales (Barthel Index, Older Americans Resources and Services scale, Pfeiffer Test, and abbreviated-Geriatric Depression Scale). The QOL was assessed with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. A comorbidity score (0-7) was constructed. All-cause death, HF-related hospitalization, and the composite end point of both were assessed.ResultsComorbidities and QOL scores were similar in HFmrEF (2.41±1.5 and 30.1±18.3, respectively) and HFrEF (2.30±1.4 and 30.8±18.5, respectively) and were higher in HFpEF (3.02±1.5, P<.001, and 36.5±20.7, P=.003, respectively). No statistically significant differences in fragility between HFmrEF (48.6%) and HFrEF (41.9%) (P=.09) nor HFpEF (54.3%) (P=.29) were found. In univariate analysis, the association of comorbidities, QOL, and fragility with the 3 end points was higher for HFmrEF than for HFrEF and HFpEF. In multivariate analysis, comorbidities were independently associated with the 3 end points (P≤.001), and fragility was independently associated with all-cause death and the composite end point (P<.001) in HFmrEF.ConclusionComorbidities and fragility are independent predictors of outcomes in ambulatory patients with HFmrHF and should be considered in the routine clinical assessment of HFmrEF.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comorbidities, Fragility, and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction

Gastelurrutia

Lupón

Moliner

et al. 2018

Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Spanish version of this questionnaire has been widely used 9 and prospectively validated. 10,11 The MLWHFQ consists of 21 questions that evaluate the impact of HF on physical, psychological, and social aspects of the patients' lives. Answers range from 0 (no limitation) to 5 (maximal limitation); thus, global scores can range from 0 to 105, and higher scores reflect worse quality of life.…”

Section: Quality Of Life Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No significant differences were found in demographic and clinical characteristics between those patients who completed the questionnaires and those who did not. QoL scores decreased during the first year [29 at baseline (P 25 -P 75 16 -43) vs. 15 (P 25 -P 75 [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]) at 1 year, P , 0.001], which was tempered, yet remained significant, up to 5 years [12 (P 25 -P 75 7-23) at 3 years vs. 10 (P 25 -P 75 5-21) at 5 years, P ¼ 0.012; Figure 3]. The worse the initial QoL, the greater the improvement observed during the first year.…”

Section: Quality Of Life Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life monitoring in ambulatory heart failure patients: temporal changes and prognostic value

Lupón

Gastelurrutia

Antonio

et al. 2013

European J of Heart Fail

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsHeart failure (HF) is a chronic condition that typically affects a patient's quality of life (QoL). Little is known about long-term QoL monitoring in HF. This study aimed to evaluate the temporal changes and prognostic value of QoL assessment in a real-life cohort of HF patients. Methods and resultsThe Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire was used to monitor QoL at baseline and at 1, 3, and 5 years for 1151 consecutive patients {71.7% men, median age 69 years [25th-75th percentiles (P 25 -P 75 ) 59-76]} in an HF unit. Follow-up for prognosis assessment was extended to 6 years. The number of answered questionnaires was 1151 at baseline, 746 at 1 year, 268 at 3 years, and 240 at 5 years. QoL scores showed a steep decrease (indicating QoL improvement) during the first year [29 (P 25 -P 75 16 -43) at baseline vs. 15 (P 25 -P 75 8-27) at 1 year, P , 0.001], which was tempered, yet significant up to 5 years [12 (P 25 -P 75 7-23) at 3 years vs. 10 (P 25 -P 75 5 -21) at 5 years, P ¼ 0.012]. We recorded 457 deaths during follow-up. In a comprehensive multivariable Cox regression analysis, baseline QoL remained a significant prognosticator during follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) Cox for death 1.012, 95% confidence interval 1.006 -1.018, P , 0.001]. QoL monitoring showed that a score increase ≥ 10% between consecutive assessments stratified high-risk patients within the next 12 months (P ¼ 0.008). ConclusionBoth baseline and follow-up QoL monitoring were useful for patient risk stratification in a real-life HF cohort. Worse QoL may warn of a worse prognosis. Widespread QoL monitoring in routine clinical practice is recommended.--

show abstract

“…. The measurements of quality of life (QOL) in most of the studies have been performed based on the hospital setting and discharge follow-up (McMurray et al, 2012;Naveiro-Rilo et al, 2010;Santos, Plewka, & Brofman, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying cut‐off scores for interpretation of the Heart Failure Impact Questionnaire

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsHeart failure (HF) influences health‐related quality of life. However, the factors that contribute to health‐related quality of life remain unclear in Taiwan. We aim to identify the factors influencing health‐related quality of life in HF patients.MethodsHospitalized HF (N = 225) patients were included from April 2011 to April 2014. Health‐related quality of life was assessed by using the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. A new cut‐off was conducted based on the combination of SF‐36 and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire.ResultsThere were significant differences between good and poor quality groups on age, gender, education levels, occupational classification caregiver, New York Heart Association classes, and the numbers of comorbidities. The logistic regression analysis showed that the number of comorbidities was more than three and New York Heart Association class IV were significantly associated with health‐related quality of life.

show abstract

Validation of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire in Primary Care

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

Comorbidities, Fragility, and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction

Comorbidities, Fragility, and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction

Quality of life monitoring in ambulatory heart failure patients: temporal changes and prognostic value

Identifying cut‐off scores for interpretation of the Heart Failure Impact Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About