Association between quality of life and prognosis of candidate patients for heart transplantation: a cross-sectional study.
Vanessa Silveira Faria, Ligia Neres Matos, Liana Amorim Correa Trotte and 2 others
PMID 30328977WHAT IT FOUND
Heart transplant candidates' quality-of-life scores showed only weak links to two prognosis scores.
Poor prognosis did not reliably mean poor quality of life, so assess both separately.
Key findings
01Correlations between the HFSS or SHFM prognosis scores and the MLHFQ or KCCQ quality-of-life scores were weak, with the highest reported r = 0.21.
02HFSS classified 89.2% of patients as medium/low one-year mortality risk, while SHFM classified 90.6% as medium/high risk.
03Worse prognosis did not reliably mean worse quality of life.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Small convenience sample: 47 patients were potentially eligible and 32 were selected. Single-centre study at a Brazilian transplant clinic, so results may not transfer to other health systems. Most participants had advanced heart failure: 26 were NYHA class III and 6 were NYHA class IV. Patients could not complete the quality-of-life questionnaires alone, so interview-assisted answers may differ from self-administered scores. Cross-sectional design did not follow patients over time, so it cannot show causation or transplant survival outcomes.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the weak correlations as proof that quality of life is unimportant for heart transplant candidates. The paper only compared two prognosis scores with two quality-of-life scores in a small cross-sectional sample, and it did not follow patients or test transplant survival.