Download Article [PDF]

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
Dovepress
open access to scientific and medical research
O r i g i n a l R e s e a rc h
Open Access Full Text Article
Conversion of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire
into EQ-5D utilities for ischemic heart disease:
a systematic review and catalog of the literature
This article was published in the following Dove Press journal:
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
19 May 2014
Number of times this article has been viewed
Harindra C Wijeysundera 1–4
Sara Farshchi-Zarabi 1
William Witteman 5
Maria C Bennell 1
Schulich Heart Centre, Division
of Cardiology, Sunnybrook Health
Sciences Centre, 2Institute of Health
Policy, Management and Evaluation,
University of Toronto, 3Institute
for Clinical Evaluative Sciences,
4
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of
St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON,
5
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire du
Québec, Charlesbourg, QC, Canada
1
Background: There is a paucity of preference-based (utility) measures of health-related
quality of life for patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD); in contrast, the Seattle Angina
Questionnaire (SAQ) is a widely used descriptive measure. Our objective was to perform a
systematic review of the literature to identify IHD studies reporting SAQ scores in order to
apply a mapping algorithm to convert these to preference-based scores for secondary use in
economic evaluations.
Methods: Relevant articles were identified in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane
Library (Wiley), HealthStar (Ovid), and PubMed from inception to 2012. We previously
­developed and validated a mapping algorithm that converts SAQ descriptive scores to ­European
­Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility scores. In the current study, this mapping algorithm
was used to estimate EQ-5D utility scores from SAQ scores.
Results: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were categorized into three
groups, ie, general IHD (n=13), acute coronary syndromes (n=4), and revascularization (n=19).
EQ-5D scores for patients with general IHD were in the range of 0.605–0.843 at baseline, and
increased to 0.649–0.877 post follow-up. EQ-5D scores for studies of patients with recent acute
coronary syndromes increased from 0.706–0.796 at baseline to 0.795–0.942 post follow-up.
The revascularization studies had EQ-5D scores in the range of 0.616–0.790 at baseline, and
increased to 0.653–0.928 after treatment; studies that focused only on coronary artery bypass
grafting increased from 0.643–0.788 at baseline to 0.653–0.928 after grafting, and studies that
focused only on percutaneous coronary intervention increased in score from 0.616–0.790 at
baseline to 0.668–0.897 after treatment.
Conclusion: In this review, we provide a catalog of estimated health utility scores across a
wide range of disease severity and following various interventions in patients with IHD. Our
catalog of EQ-5D scores can be used in IHD-related economic evaluations.
Keywords: health-related quality of life, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, utilities, European
Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, mapping algorithm, ischemic heart disease
Introduction
Correspondence: Harindra C
Wijeysundera
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre,
2075 Bayview Avenue, Suite A202,
Toronto, ON M4N3M5, Canada
Tel +1 416 480 4527
Fax +1 416 480 4657
Email [email protected]
sunnybrook.ca
Economic evaluations with cost-effectiveness analyses are important in the decisionmaking process for health resource allocation. Cost-effectiveness analysis involves
estimation of the incremental cost of a new intervention as well as its incremental net
health benefit, in comparison with a reference. To facilitate the comparison of different
interventions, it is important that the health effects be reported in standardized units.
Current guidelines recommend that the metric of choice for reporting health benefits
in cost-effectiveness analysis is the quality-adjusted life-year.1–5
253
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6 253–268
Dovepress
© 2014 Wijeysundera et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0)
License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further
permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on
how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S63187
Dovepress
Wijeysundera et al
A variety of techniques have been developed to assess
patient quality of life. Available instruments can be generally
classified into two major categories, ie, descriptive measurement instruments or preference-based methods. Descriptive
measurement instruments are designed to measure quality
of life across important aspects of a patient’s health state,
such as physical, psychosocial, or functional well-being.6
Such instruments provide a score for each health domain
and a quantitative measure that represents a patient’s current
health state. In contrast, preference-based or utility instruments, such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions
(EQ-5D), add a valuation component to a patient’s reported
health state.7 These instruments are designed to reflect both
a quantitative description of a patient’s health state and
society’s preference for that particular health state. This
preference component is the primary distinction between a
utility instrument and a descriptive measurement instrument.
Preference-based instruments allow for the calculation of
quality-adjusted life-years.
In ischemic heart disease (IHD) research, there is an
abundance of published literature on the Seattle Angina
Questionnaire (SAQ), a descriptive quality of life ­instrument.
The SAQ is a validated descriptive instrument that evaluates quality of life in patients with IHD across five domains,
specifically physical limitation, treatment satisfaction, angina
frequency, angina stability, and disease perception.8 In contrast, there is a paucity of studies that report utility weights for
patients with IHD.3 The absence of available and up-to-date
utility weights is a substantial limitation when performing
economic analyses in IHD. To address this lack of utility
information, we have previously published a mapping algorithm to convert SAQ descriptive scores to utility weights,
based on the EQ-5D preference-based utility instrument.9,10
In this study, we extended our previous work by performing a systematic review of the literature to identify all
previous studies that used the SAQ to measure health state,
and then applied our validated mapping algorithm to create a
comprehensive catalog of utility weights across the spectrum
of IHD, with the intention that our catalog be used for future
economic evaluations in IHD.
Materials and methods
Search strategy
First, we conducted a systematic review of the published
literature, conforming to the standards recommended by the
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.11 We used the search terms
“Seattle Angina Questionnaire”, “SAQ”, or slight modifica-
254
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
tions of these terms (see Supplementary material for full
search strategy) to identify potentially relevant citations from
inception to November 7, 2012 using the following medical
literature databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid),
Cochrane Library (Wiley), HealthStar (Ovid), and PubMed.
We subsequently performed a citation search in Google
Scholar (Google), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), and
Scopus (Elsevier) to identify articles citing the original paper
by Spertus et al8 that first examined the validity and reliability
of the SAQ. Finally, we searched major clinical trial registries
(clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu) from inception
to November 7, 2012 for studies that used the SAQ as an
outcome measure, using the search terms “Seattle Angina
Questionnaire” or “SAQ”.
Upon removal of duplications, two independent reviewers (SF and HCW) screened each reference. We utilized
a hierarchal approach, screening citations by title, then
abstract, and finally by full text to determine relevance.
Reviewers assessed the eligibility of these selected articles
according to two prespecified inclusion criteria, ie, that
publication was in English and that mean scores and standard errors (or the ability to calculate standard errors from
the available data) were reported for all five domains of the
SAQ. Although the SAQ has been translated into multiple
languages, the original SAQ validation studies were based
on the English version; as such, we restricted our algorithm
to English articles. All five domains were needed to utilize
our mapping algorithm. Exclusion criteria were articles that
reported on experimental interventions (eg, transmyocardial
laser revascularization, herbal medicine) that are not part of
standard therapy. The following information was extracted
from eligible studies: baseline characteristics of study
participants (age, gender); inclusion and exclusion criteria
for each study, interventions (eg, myocardial infarction,
revascularization) and follow-up duration; and reported
SAQ scores and standard errors.
Data synthesis
We have previously created and published a prediction
algorithm using multivariable linear regression modeling,
with the utility weight from the EQ-5D being our response
variable of interest. Details of the derivation and ­validation
of the mapping algorithm are available elsewhere.9 In brief,
all model fitting was done using Bayesian methods. The
­posterior probability distribution for each of the model
parameters was estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo
simulation methods, with noninformative prior distributions
for all model parameters. The data for model development
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
Dovepress
were from 1,992 consecutive patients who underwent
­c oronary angiography in 2004 as part of the Alberta
­Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary
Heart Disease ­database. The final mapping algorithm was a
linear regression model, with the dependent variable being
the EQ-5D, and a conditional distribution of Yi∼N(µi,σi). The
specification of the mean was given by:
µi= β0 + β1AFi + β2ASi + β3DPi + β4PLi + β5TSi
with the following parameter estimates:
intercept 0.4388 (0.4015–0.4763), β AF 0.0010
(0.0007–0.0013), β AS −0.0002 (−0.0005 to 0.0000), β DP
0.0023 (0.0020–0.0027), β PL 0.0019 (0.0017–0.0022), β TS
0.0004 (−0.0001 to 0.0008).
Using the posterior distribution for the coefficients of
the final linear regression mapping algorithm, we calculated
the EQ-5D based on the scores for the five SAQ domains
for each included study. To fully incorporate uncertainty in
the estimated EQ-5D utilities, we assumed that the inputted SAQ values from each paper had a normal distribution,
based on the mean and standard error. We sampled from this
distribution to calculate the mean and 95% credible interval
of the estimated EQ-5D.
The mapping algorithm and EQ-5D estimates were
calculated using WinBUGS version 1.4 (Medical Research
Council, London, UK).
Results
Study selection
We identified 2,776 citations from various sources using
our search criteria. After removing duplications, 1,092
articles were screened to identify articles in English that
were potentially relevant and that reported scores and
standard errors (or standard deviation and sample size, or
confidence intervals, in order to calculate the standard error)
for all five domains of the SAQ. Full review was done on
60 articles. We excluded 24 of these articles because they
provided SAQ scores following experimental interventions, ie, neurostimulation (six articles), autologous bone
marrow transplant (three articles), transmyocardial laser
revascularization (six articles), herbal medicine (two
articles), fibroblast growth factor (one article), granulocyte
colony-stimulating factor (one article), cognitive behavioral
therapy (one article), and other (four articles). A total of
36 articles met our eligibility criteria and were included
in the final analysis. Figure 1 presents the flow diagram of
our review process.
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
Study characteristics
The 36 studies in our systematic review represent a wide
spectrum of patients with IHD. Eight of these studies focused
exclusively on patients with stable angina,12–19 and four included
patients with a previous myocardial infarction.12,20–22 Four studies specifically assessed SAQ in patients with advanced IHD
unsuitable for revascularization.18,23–25 These studies reported
SAQ scores in patients with general angina, or specifically with
severe or refractory angina. Five studies were restricted to an
elderly population,23,26–29 one study was restricted to women
with IHD,30 and one study reported SAQ data in diabetic
patients with IHD.17 SAQ data were compared among South
Asians versus Europeans with IHD in one study,31 while another
study reported the SAQs of Caucasians and African Americans
with IHD.20 The studies ranged from cross-sectional evaluations
with no follow-up to longitudinal studies with follow-up ranging from 7 days to a mean of 6 years and 11 months.
Given our intent to form a catalog such that estimated
utility scores can be easily referenced, we categorized the
36 included articles in three groups, as shown in Tables 1–3.
Thirteen studies focused on general IHD patients (Table 1),
four focused on patients with recent acute coronary syndrome
(Table 2), and 19 assessed revascularized patients (Table 3),
of which eight included only patients who ­underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)23,28,29,32–36 and six
included only patients who had percutaneous coronary
intervention.19,21,27,37–39
Predicted EQ-5D
The SAQ scores from the original publications and the calculated EQ-5D scores are shown in Tables 1–3. The estimated
baseline EQ-5D scores for the general IHD patients were in
the range of 0.605–0.843, increasing to 0.649–0.877 post
follow-up (Table 1). The baseline range was 0.706–0.796 for
the studies focused on patients with a recent acute coronary
syndrome, increasing to 0.795–0.942 post follow-up (Table 2).
The revascularization studies had EQ-5D scores in the range
of 0.616–0.790 at baseline, increasing to 0.653–0.928 after
treatment (Table 3). Studies that included only CABG as the
revascularization modality had an EQ-5D score range that
increased from 0.643–0.788 at baseline to 0.653–0.928 after
CABG; the studies that focused only on percutaneous coronary intervention had scores that increased from 0.616–0.790
at baseline to 0.668–0.897 after treatment.
Discussion
In this report, we have provided a comprehensive catalog of
predicted EQ-5D utility scores for patients with IHD. We first
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
255
Dovepress
Wijeysundera et al
Ovid MEDLINE searched on November 7, 2012 (432 citations)
Ovid EMBASE searched on November 7, 2012 (574 citations)
PubMed searched on November 7, 2012 (366 citations)
Cochrane Library searched on November 7, 2012 (63 citations)
Ovid HealthStar searched on November 7, 2012 (388 citations)
SCOPUS searched on November 7, 2012 (131 citations)
Web of Science searched on November 7, 2012 (322 citations)
Google Scholar searched on November 7, 2012 (476 citations)
ClinicalTrials.gov searched on November 7, 2012 (23 citations)
EU Clinical Trials Register searched on November 7, 2012 (one citation)
Nonduplicate citations screened (n=1,092)
Inclusion/exclusion
criteria applied
1,032 articles excluded
after title/abstract
screen
60 articles retrieved
Inclusion/exclusion
criteria applied
24 articles excluded
after full text screen
36 articles included
Figure 1 Process of study selection.
performed a systematic review of the literature to identify
studies that reported SAQ scores and then applied our previously validated mapping algorithm to convert SAQ scores to
EQ-5D scores. The studies included in our systematic review
represent a broad spectrum of IHD patients and assessed
quality of life at baseline and/or following a broad range of
nonpharmacologic, medical, or surgical interventions.
Patient-reported health status has gained an increasingly
important role in the decision-making process for health
resource allocation.40 Patient health status independently
predicts mortality, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations,
and costs of care in cardiovascular illnesses.41–43 Current
methodologic guidelines emphasize the importance of
preference-based measures in comparative effectiveness
studies of health technologies. For example, the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests that
EQ-5D is the preferred method in quantifying the health
outcome of various interventions. 44 However, in many
256
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
circumstances, preference-based instruments have not been
included in cardiovascular studies. In the absence of such
information, mapping techniques such as that applied in the
current study can be used to estimate utility weights from
available descriptive quality of life data.45
Dyer et al recently published a summary of available
EQ-5D scores from the entire spectrum of cardiovascular
diseases,46 and were able to identify 18 studies in IHD. They
observed significant heterogeneity in the reported EQ-5D
scores across these studies, in the range of 0.45–0.88. We
believe our study is an important addition to this early work,
by providing utility scores on additional studies in IHD,
covering a wide spectrum of revascularization modalities
and patient populations. Similar to the previous work by
Dyer et al, we found heterogeneity between studies. This
heterogeneity in utility weights between studies underscores
the importance of a catalog such as ours. When researchers
are developing economic models, it is essential that the
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
(I) Diagnosed with IHD.
(I) Women with IHD who consented to
participate in the study.
(I) IHD and eligible for cardiac rehabilitation.
(I) Veterans, IHD: self-reported angina,
history of myocardial infarction, coronary
artery disease, or a coronary artery
revascularization procedure on the
screening questionnaire.
(I) Angina, symptomatic IHD, unsuitable for
revascularization. (E) LVEF ,30%, could not
comply with follow-up, had a condition that
precluded the performance of stress testing,
and had compromised life expectancy.
(I) Refractory angina (rejected for
revascularization) and referred to refractory
angina clinic.
Bainey et al31
Broddadottir
et al30
Leung et al47
Ohldin et al20
Moore et al25
Fathi et al24
Inclusion/exclusion
Reference
Table 1 General ischemic heart disease
6,704
1,281
2. African Americans
Refractory angina
program
2. Aggressive lipid
reduction/target
LDL ,77
69
30
30
65.7
183
1. Usual therapy of lipids
(target LDL ,116)
63.3
148
3. Rehabilitation
,6 months
4. Rehabilitation
.6 months
1. Caucasians
62.3
63.9
63.4
64.0
66.3
66.9
66.3
79.6
725
114
4. Age 75–88 years
68.2
2. No rehabilitation
190
3. Age 60–74 years
52.3
1,056
133
2. Age 32–59 years
66.4
63.5
62.1
Mean age,
years
1. All patients
437
18,934
2. Europeans
1. All ages
635
n
1. South Asians
Intervention/Subgroup
81.0
77.0
80.0
98.6
98.3
72.0
71.9
70.1
71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.0
77.9
Gender
(% male)
1 year
Baseline
12 weeks
Baseline
12 weeks
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
9 months
9 months
9 months
9 months
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1 year
1 year
Time
point
27.7
(1.73)
59.0
(4.74)
58.0
(4.92)
67.0
(4.56)
73.0
(4.19)
25.2
(1.49)
80.0
(0.44)
56.4
(1.12)
57.4
(2.02)
60.0
(1.70)
48.8
(2.06)
61.7
(0.64)
59.0
(0.81)
68.9
(1.19)
66.7
(1.29)
50.8
(0.32)
51.9
(0.72)
75.0
(0.91)
PL
43.5
(3.32)
57.0
(6.20)
64.0
(4.74)
64.0
(4.92)
78.0
(5.29)
32.8
(2.85)
77.0
(0.52)
75.8
(1.45)
72.9
(2.66)
77.7
(2.26)
76.6
(2.70)
75.1
(0.91)
71.4
(1.14)
83.1
(2.09)
83.3
(1.81)
56.2
(0.33)
57.6
(0.85)
77.0
(1.11)
AS
SAQ
37.7
(2.78)
64.0
(5.47)
65.0
(5.84)
72.0
(5.84)
80.0
(4.56)
26.9
(2.32)
88.0
(0.38)
76.7
(1.23)
72.1
(2.18)
79.0
(1.93)
78.2
(2.28)
86.9
(0.67)
84.8
(0.87)
90.9
(1.42)
91.7
(1.02)
76.5
(0.29)
76.0
(0.69)
86.0
(0.91)
AF
72.0
(2.78)
85.0
(2.73)
82.0
(3.28)
92.0
(2.55)
91.0
(1.82)
62.8
(2.80)
89.0
(0.30)
85.9
(0.78)
82.0
(1.66)
87.7
(1.10)
87.8
(1.24)
78.7
(0.78)
76.5
(0.99)
85.5
(1.56)
82.0
(1.73)
83.0
(0.25)
77.6
(0.70)
86.0
(0.75)
TS
42.9
(3.17)
59.0
(4.38)
57.0
(4.56)
60.0
(4.92)
70.0
(4.01)
31.3
(2.38)
76.0
(0.40)
59.7
(1.13)
52.5
(2.06)
62.8
(1.71)
63.2
(2.06)
67.3
(0.84)
65.6
(1.01)
72.4
(2.09)
69.7
(2.06)
63.0
(0.31)
58.5
(0.77)
71.0
(0.95)
DP
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
(Continued)
0.649
(0.63–0.67)
0.775
(0.74–0.81)
0.767
(0.74–0.80)
0.802
(0.77–0.83)
0.842
(0.81–0.87)
0.605
(0.58–0.63)
0.877
(0.87–0.88)
0.781
(0.77–0.79)
0.760
(0.75–0.78)
0.797
(0.78–0.81)
0.776
(0.76–0.79)
0.816
(0.81–0.83)
0.805
(0.79–0.82)
0.847
(0.83–0.86)
0.836
(0.82–0.85)
0.781
(0.77–0.79)
0.769
(0.76–0.78)
0.852
(0.84–0.86)
EQ-5D
Dovepress
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
257
258
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Stone et al15
Makolkin and
Osadchiy14
Beltrame et al13
Spertus et al12
Reference
(I) Chronic, stable, symptomatic IHD,
documented history of coronary disease
(prior MI, coronary revascularization, or
history of typical angina pectoris), taking at
least 2 regular antiangina medications for
control of symptoms.
(E) Hospitalizations within 4 months, aortic
stenosis, EF ,40%, sick sinus syndrome,
advanced heart block, or other significant
comorbidity limiting life expectancy. (I) Stable angina. Not required to have
ongoing angina symptoms.
(I) Stable angina with average of .3 angina
attacks/week, 1–2 antianginal agents with
hemodynamic action at stable doses at the
time of inclusion for $3 months.
(E) NYHA class $II, unstable angina, recent
MI or stroke within 6 months, severe
arrhythmia or conduction impairment.
(I) Age $18 years, chronic stable angina and
$3 episodes of angina/week despite treatment
with 10 mg of amlodipine.
(E) NYHA class IV CHF, prior MI, unstable
angina within 2 months, active acute
myocarditis, pericarditis, hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy, uncontrolled hypertension,
history of torsades de pointes, agents to
prolong QTc interval, QTc interval
$500 msec, receiving inhibitors of
cytochrome P450-3A4, hepatic disease,
creatinine clearance ,30 mL/min, chronic
illness likely to interfere with protocol
compliance, taking any digitalis preparation,
perhexiline, trimetazidine, beta-blockers, or
calcium channel blockers other than
amlodipine, proscribed antianginal medications
within 4 weeks before initiation of the study
drug, participation in another investigative trial
within 30 days before study start.
Inclusion/exclusion
Table 1 (Continued)
846
283
281
1. Placebo + amlodipine
2. Ranolazine +
amlodipine
62.0
61.3
58.7
71.0
65.3
51
2,031
64.6
Mean age,
years
49
n
Trimetazidine and
conventional therapy
1. Usual antianginal
medications
2. Long-acting diltiazem ±
nitroglycerin patches ±
atenolol
Intervention/Subgroup
72.0
73.0
61.0
64.0
NA
NA
Gender
(% male)
Baseline
Baseline
8 weeks
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Time
point
48.9
(1.02)
49.2
(1.03)
70.0
(0.62)
50.7
(0.70)
61.0
(0.60)
54.2
(3.61)
48.9
(3.05)
PL
57.2
(1.05)
54.7
(1.07)
63.0
(0.59)
57.6
(0.90)
92.5
(0.70)
57.1
(3.41)
50.5
(3.01)
AS
SAQ
40.0
(0.88)
40.6
(0.78)
84.0
(0.51)
33.3
(0.70)
55.6
(0.80)
66.9
(3.52)
56.7
(3.87)
AF
75.4
(0.83)
74.6
(0.85)
90.0
(0.31)
62.3
(0.70)
77.4
(0.50)
83.6
(2.07)
80.6
(2.31)
TS
41.5
(1.05)
41.6
(1.02)
70.0
(0.54)
36.7
(0.60)
55.5
(0.70)
55.3
(3.14)
48.7
(2.99)
DP
0.687
(0.67–0.70)
0.688
(0.68–0.70)
0.843
(0.84–0.85)
0.667
(0.65–0.68)
0.751
(0.74–0.76)
0.760
(0.74–0.78)
0.724
(0.70–0.75)
EQ-5D
Wijeysundera et al
Dovepress
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
(I) Elective, first time coronary angiogram,
planned angiography date 3–8 weeks from
the time of referral, understand written or
spoken English.
(E) Previous coronary angiography, CABG
surgery, PCI, or other cardiac procedures
such as valve surgery, awaiting coronary
angiography in hospital. de Jong-Watt
et al54
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
42
693
2. Nondiabetic
Coronary angiogram
320
36
1. Diabetic
Dietary management
(2 L-arginine-enriched
nutrient bars/day)
64.6
61.0
62.0
65.9
67.5
85.0
84.0
77.8
1 week preangiography
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1. 2 weeks
of dietary
management
2. 2 weeks
of placebo
Baseline
49.0
(1.84)
51.0
(1.29)
46.3
(3.95)
48.8
(3.99)
60.0
(3.66)
60.0
(3.50)
60.0
(1.48)
65.0
(1.02)
60.0
(4.29)
57.7
(4.29)
54.0
(2.66)
67.0
(3.66)
60.0
(2.33)
64.0
(2.50)
64.0
(1.56)
66.0
(1.02)
57.5
(4.67)
54.3
(4.58)
66.0
(4.00)
64.0
(3.50)
67.0
(3.16)
83.0
(1.17)
85.0
(0.75)
83.1
(2.55)
79.4
(2.75)
70.0
(3.83)
70.0
(3.16)
77.0
(2.50)
47.0
(1.45)
49.0
(0.98)
47.7
(3.63)
42.3
(3.36)
56.0
(3.83)
53.0
(3.33)
61.0
(2.66)
0.750
(0.74–0.76)
0.767
(0.76–0.78)
0.746
(0.72–0.77)
0.724
(0.70–0.75)
0.766
(0.74–0.79)
0.758
(0.74–0.78)
0.787
(0.77–0.81)
Note: SAQ values include standard error; EQ-5D values include 95% confidence intervals.
Abbreviations: I, inclusion criteria; E, exclusion criteria; EF, ejection fraction; IHD, ischemic heart disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; MI, myocardial infarction; NYHA class, New York Heart
Association classification; CHF, congestive heart failure; Mets, metabolic equivalents; HF, heart failure; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CCS, Canadian Cardiovascular Society; NA, not
available; SAQ, Seattle Angina Questionnaire; PL, physical limitation; TS, treatment satisfaction; AF, angina frequency; AS, angina stability; DP, disease perception; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions; QTc, corrected QT.
Deaton et al17
(I) CCS II and III stable angina and $1 mm ST
depression during treadmill exercise testing
before achieving 14.5 Mets.
(E) Unstable angina, MI, major surgery or
angioplasty within the past 3 months,
symptomatic HF, impaired renal or hepatic
function, or any other systemic illness,
congenital heart disease, valvular heart
disease, atrial fibrillation, uncontrolled
hypertension, type 1 diabetes, diseases
other than IHD that would interfere with
treadmill testing.
(I) Stable, symptomatic IHD and coronary
anatomy suitable for PCI.
Maxwell et al16
Dovepress
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
259
260
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
318
205
170
170
Rose Dyspnea Scale: 1
Rose Dyspnea Scale: 2
Rose Dyspnea Scale: 3
Rose Dyspnea Scale: 4
Baseline
2–3 years
1 month
1 month
1 month
1 month
2. Men
59.0
71.0
64.1
57.6
61.5
67.3
75.3
Baseline
69.7
65.5
60.6
60.7
60.9
59.7
59.5
1. Women
242
408
972
Rose Dyspnea Scale: 0
1 month
Baseline
68.0
B. Placebo
62.0 (median)
Baseline
2,995
2. No prior history
of angina
A. Ranolazine
Time
point
Baseline
62.6
Gender
(% male)
B. Placebo
66.0 (median)
Mean age,
years
Baseline
3,565
n
1. Prior history of
angina
A. Ranolazine
Intervention/
Subgroup
49.3
(2.79)
55.1
(2.45)
73.0
(1.23)
73.0
(0.65)
73.5
(0.65)
97.6
(0.31)
93.1
(0.84)
89.1
(1.36)
80.0
(1.85)
60.5
(2.35)
54.5
(0.57)
54.1
(0.57)
PL
48.1
(1.92)
53.2
(1.61)
68.0
(1.29)
39.2
(0.70)
40.2
(0.74)
54.7
(0.50)
56.9
(1.03)
55.6
(1.45)
57.9
(1.77)
56.1
(1.83)
30.8
(0.70)
30.6
(0.72)
AS
73.9
(3.00)
75.6
(2.34)
86.0
(1.10)
76.4
(0.64)
76.7
(0.62)
95.4
(0.40)
92.7
(0.82)
88.0
(1.32)
86.0
(1.53)
81.1
(1.90)
52.1
(0.63)
51.2
(0.65)
AF
84.2
(2.11)
87.6
(1.46)
81.0
(1.09)
85.9
(0.40)
86.5
(0.41)
92.5
(0.37)
90.0
(0.71)
90.8
(0.87)
86.9
(1.18)
85.7
(1.18)
77.5
(0.43)
77.5
(0.44)
TS
57.7
(2.70)
63.1
(2.13)
72.0
(1.15)
47.6
(0.54)
48.4
(0.54)
83.0
(0.54)
76.8
(1.11)
71.0
(1.57)
65.8
(2.06)
58.4
(2.23)
37.7
(0.45)
37.5
(0.47)
DP
0.765
(0.75–0.79)
0.791
(0.77–0.81)
0.851
(0.84–0.86)
0.793
(0.78–0.80)
0.796
(0.79–0.81)
0.942
(0.93–0.95)
0.914
(0.90–0.93)
0.889
(0.88–0.90)
0.855
(0.84–0.87)
0.795
(0.78–0.81)
0.708
(0.70–0.72)
0.706
(0.69–0.72)
EQ-5D
Notes: SAQ values include standard error; EQ-5D values include 95% confidence intervals.
Abbreviations: I , inclusion criteria; E, exclusion criteria; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; ECG, electrocardiogram; SAQ, Seattle Angina Questionnaire; PL, physical limitation; TS, treatment satisfaction; AF, angina frequency;
AS, angina stability; DP, disease perception; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions.
Asadi-Lari et al53
Pettersen et al22
(I) Admitted to acute cardiac unit
with chest pain.
(I) Myocardial ischemia at rest for
$10 minutes presenting within the
previous 48 hours, and elevated
biomarkers of myocardial necrosis,
ST depression of at least 0.1 mV,
diabetes mellitus or a TIMI risk
score of $3.
(E) Persistent ST segment elevation,
successful revascularization
before randomization, and ECG
abnormalities that interfere with
interpretation of ischemia.
(I) $18 years, symptoms of
myocardial ischemia at rest lasting
at least 10 minutes and present
within the previous 48 hours,
and had at least one of: elevated
biomarkers of myocardial necrosis,
ST depression of $0.1 mV, diabetes
mellitus or a TIMI risk score of $3.
(E) Persistent ST segment
elevation, revascularization
before randomization, and ECG
abnormalities that would interfere
with interpretation of Holter
monitoring for ischemia.
(I) Discharge diagnosis of acute MI.
Arnold et al51
Arnold et al52
Inclusion/exclusion
Reference
Table 2 Acute coronary syndrome, MI, and acute chest pain
Wijeysundera et al
Dovepress
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
(I) Multivessel IHD, revascularization
was clinically indicated and appropriate.
(E) Previous revascularization,
thoracotomy, intervention for pathology
of the valves, great vessels, or aorta.
(I) Refractory and severe stable angina
(CCS class III–IV) despite optimal
conventional pharmacological therapy.
Zhang
et al48
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
(I) IHD.
(E) Undergoing investigation for
valvular heart disease, without IHD on
angiography, no consent for follow-up.
(I) Patients with angina symptoms
referred for angiographic screening
of IHD. Following angiogram treatment
decision (CABG, PCI, or medical
management) was made as per clinical
indication.
Hofer
et al50
Graham
et al26
(I) Chest pain at rest, documented
electrocardiographic or arteriographic
evidence of IHD.
Kim et al49
Andréll
et al18
Inclusion/Exclusion
Reference
Table 3 Revascularization
158
22
2. CCS class I
54
5. CCS class IV
3,488
62
4. CCS class III
1. Age ,70 years:
A. Medical therapy
20
3. CCS class II
59.2
(median)
NA
NA
NA
NA
64.5
62.0
915
72.0
63.0
139
2. Stable angina and
revascularization
1. Early interventional
strategy – maximal
medical therapy and early
coronary arteriography
with possible myocardial
revascularization.
2. Conservative strategy –
maximal medical therapy
and ischemia – or
symptom-provoked
angiography and
revascularization.
1. All patients
70.0
62.0
61.0
Mean
age
895
139
500
2. CABG
1. Refractory angina
488
n
1. PCI
Intervention/Subgroup
68.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
67.7
64.0
61.0
73.0
73.0
78.0
80.0
Gender
(% male)
1 year
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1 year
Baseline
1 year
4 months
1 year
4 months
1 year
1 year
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Time
point
72.8
(0.18)
61.6
(2.99)
63.7
(2.13)
64.9
(9.45)
67.9
(6.48)
61.5
(3.90)
60.5
(4.47)
69.8
(0.90)
73.3
(1.00)
51.9
(2.16)
55.8
(2.39)
66
(3.43)
75.4
(0.90)
76.9
(1.00)
56.6
(1.02)
54.3
(0.98)
PL
75.3
(0.07)
53.9
(2.68)
68.4
(2.44)
57.1
(11.19)
46.4
(10.15)
61.1
(4.71)
54.7
(4.66)
63.9
(1.00)
63.7
(1.00)
50.3
(2.83)
59.4
(3.77)
71.7
(4.60)
70.3
(1.00)
67.7
(1.00)
47.4
(1.45)
45.0
(1.41)
AS
84.1
(0.10)
45.0
(1.92)
72.7
(2.18)
40.0
(10.41)
54.2
(8.51)
44.9
(4.27)
45.1
(3.72)
72.6
(0.90)
78.0
(0.90)
48.4
(3.09)
60.7
(4.45)
80.9
(4.11)
80.2
(0.90)
82.4
(0.90)
55.8
(1.26)
53.8
(1.25)
AF
84.4
(0.05)
84.7
(1.35)
82.5
(0.46)
89.6
(3.85)
89.5
(3.48)
85.0
(2.34)
84.8
(2.52)
86.3
(0.50)
88.6
(0.50)
66.9
(2.65)
72.7
(2.76)
78.5
(3.51)
90.1
(0.50)
91.2
(0.50)
86.7
(0.65)
86.2
(0.67)
TS
71.1
(0.07)
48.9
(2.08)
64.7
(2.16)
51.9
(9.86)
53.2
(7.44)
55.3
(3.77)
41.7
(3.61)
64.4
(0.80)
71.2
(0.90)
46
(2.63)
53.4
(3.09)
64.4
(4.21)
72.1
(0.90)
75.9
(0.90)
39.5
(0.90)
37.0
(0.91)
DP
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
(Continued)
0.846
(0.84–0.85)
0.738
(0.72–0.76)
0.803
(0.79–0.82)
0.747
(0.68–0.81)
0.774
(0.73–0.82)
0.751
(0.72–0.78)
0.719
(0.69–0.75)
0.816
(0.81–0.82)
0.845
(0.84–0.85)
0.710
(0.69–0.73)
0.747
(0.73–0.77)
0.813
(0.79–0.84)
0.853
(0.84–0.86)
0.868
(0.86–0.88)
0.720
(0.71–0.73)
0.708
(0.70–0.72)
EQ-5D
Dovepress
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
261
262
Neil et al21
Reference
(I) Age 21–81 years, with stable or
unstable angina and a positive functional
study for ischemia or undergoing
angioplasty after a recent MI with target
lesions that were potentially treatable by
balloon angioplasty or a stent.
Inclusion/exclusion
Table 3 (Continued)
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
819
220
C. PCI
3. Age $80 years:
A. Medical therapy
230
249
1. Primary stent
2. Optimal PTCA/
provisional stent
137
819
B. CABG
C. PCI
1,302
2. Age 70–79 years:
A. Medical therapy
82
2,698
C. PCI
B. CABG
1,697
n
B. CABG
Intervention/Subgroup
61.0
(median)
60.0
(median)
82.1
(median)
81.8
(median)
82.4
(median)
73.9
(median)
73.6
(median)
73.9
(median)
59.1
(median)
61.6
(median)
Mean
age
72.0
75.0
56.2
74.4
65.5
68.1
77.2
62.7
78.4
83.9
Gender
(% male)
6 months
6 months
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
1 year
3 years
Time
point
51.9
(1.01)
53.8
(1.27)
53.7
(1.56)
54.2
(1.69)
51.9
(1.06)
53.3
(1.25)
84.0
(1.51)
86.0
(1.33)
62.1
(0.36)
62.2
(0.41)
63.3
(0.46)
62.9
(0.49)
63.2
(0.44)
63.1
(0.46)
73.5
(0.18)
74.2
(0.26)
74.7
(0.28)
74.9
(0.20)
75.5
(0.18)
PL
75.0
(0.33)
76.8
(0.39)
78.1
(0.54)
80.3
(0.52)
74.7
(0.41)
76.9
(0.41)
82.0
(1.84)
83.0
(1.58)
77.0
(0.15)
76.7
(0.13)
80.5
(0.18)
80.0
(0.18)
78.2
(0.18)
77.8
(0.15)
74.9
(0.07)
78.6
(0.10)
78.1
(0.10)
76.7
(0.07)
76.2
(0.70)
AS
79.9
(0.41)
81.2
(0.44)
82.2
(0.62)
83.8
(0.62)
79.3
(0.46)
81.0
(0.46)
90.0
(1.18)
90.0
(1.07)
83.0
(0.15)
83.6
(0.15)
85.5
(0.52)
85.9
(0.20)
84.0
(0.20)
84.5
(0.20)
84.6
(0.07)
86.2
(0.13)
86.6
(0.13)
85.4
(0.10)
85.8
(0.07)
AF
87.9
(0.20)
88.3
(0.23)
89.6
(0.31)
90.1
(0.33)
88.0
(0.23)
88.7
(0.23)
88.0
(1.18)
91.0
(0.82)
86.3
(0.07)
86.6
(0.07)
88.6
(0.10)
88.9
(0.10)
87.1
(0.10)
87.4
(0.10)
84.8
(0.05)
86.9
(0.05)
87.1
(0.07)
85.5
(0.05)
85.9
(0.05)
TS
73.5
(0.36)
74.2
(0.39)
75.3
(0.54)
76.2
(0.59)
72.9
(0.44)
73.9
(0.44)
77.0
(1.45)
77.0
(1.33)
74.9
(0.15)
75.1
(0.15)
77.3
(0.18)
77.4
(0.18)
75.8
(0.15)
76.0
(0.18)
71.6
(0.07)
73.3
(0.10)
74.0
(0.10)
72.5
(0.07)
73.0
(0.07)
DP
0.808
(0.80–0.82)
0.815
(0.80–0.83)
0.818
(0.81–0.83)
0.823
(0.81–0.83)
0.806
(0.80–0.82)
0.813
(0.80–0.82)
0.887
(0.88–0.90)
0.892
(0.88–0.90)
0.833
(0.82–0.84)
0.835
(0.83–0.84)
0.844
(0.84–0.85)
0.844
(0.84–0.85)
0.839
(0.83–0.85)
0.840
(0.83–0.85)
0.849
(0.84–0.86)
0.856
(0.85–0.86)
0.859
(0.85–0.87)
0.855
(0.85–0.86)
0.858
(0.85–0.86)
EQ-5D
Wijeysundera et al
Dovepress
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
(I) .70% stenosis in at least one
major epicardial coronary artery with
objective evidence of myocardial
ischemia or .80% stenosis in at least
one coronary artery and classic angina
without provocative testing.
Weintraub
et al39
Wong and
Chair38
(I) IHD.
(E) Unsuccessful procedures
(a residual stenosis .30% or TIMI
flow 0/1 after stenting, or in-hospital
major adverse cardiovascular events
(death, MI, or urgent revascularization),
severe cardiac disease other than
IHD, ejection fraction ,40%, severe
neurologic disease, neoplasia, pregnancy,
periprocedural hemodynamic instability,
patient refusal.
(I) Chinese, $21 years old, no mental
disorder, no prior PCI, understand
and speak Cantonese, no severe
medical illness.
de Quadros
et al37
65
1,149
1,138
1. PCI + OMT
2. OMT
110
PCI
PCI
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
61.8
61.5
66.0
62.8
85.0
85.0
75.4
68.0
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
3 years
2 years
1 year
6 months
3 months
1 month
Baseline
3 years
2 years
1 year
6 months
3 months
1 month
Baseline
1 month
Baseline
1 year
6 months
Baseline
66.0
(0.81)
73.0
(0.82)
76
(0.82)
77.0
(0.77)
75.0
(0.82)
74
(0.88)
74.0
(1.00)
66.0
(0.81)
70.0
(0.82)
72
(0.79)
72.0
(0.83)
73.0
(0.84)
72
(0.89)
74.0
(0.99)
67.6
(2.30)
74.2
(3.24)
59.0
(1.71)
79.0
(1.04)
80.0
(1.00)
54.0
(1.06)
81.0
(0.88)
77
(0.95)
76.0
(0.94)
74.0
(0.92)
73
(0.99)
72.0
(1.16)
53.0
(1.02)
73.0
(0.94)
73.0
(0.92)
73.0
(0.97)
70.0
(0.98)
69
(1.00)
70.0
(1.16)
62.5
(3.62)
65.5
(2.80)
30.0
(2.47)
81.0
(2.66)
90.0
(2.61)
68.0
(0.83)
82.0
(0.77)
85
(0.75)
87.0
(0.66)
87.0
(0.64)
89
(0.65)
89.0
(0.74)
69.0
(0.83)
76.0
(0.80)
80.0
(0.78)
83.0
(0.75)
84.0
(0.72)
86.0
(0.70)
88.0
(0.74)
74.2
(3.34)
91.5
(0.76)
56.0
(2.38)
86.0
(2.09)
93.0
(1.30)
88.0
(0.48)
92.0
(0.40)
92
(0.41)
92.0
(0.43)
92.0
(0.40)
92
(0.47)
92.0
(0.49)
86.0
(0.51)
88.0
(0.50)
90.0
(0.47)
90.0
(0.48)
90.0
(0.48)
92.0
(0.48)
92.0
(0.45)
75.5
(1.51)
85.6
(1.91)
80.0
(2.09)
91.0
(1.33)
94.0
(0.90)
51.0
(0.80)
68.0
(0.81)
73
(0.75)
75.0
(0.73)
76.0
(0.71)
77
(0.80)
79.0
(0.82)
51.0
(0.80)
62.0
(0.80)
68
(0.78)
70.0
(0.75)
73.0
(0.76)
76
(0.81)
77.0
(0.82)
55.8
(2.93)
77.1
(2.75)
30.0
(2.09)
64.0
(2.38)
83.0
(2.21)
(Continued)
0.776
(0.77–0.79)
0.839
(0.83–0.85)
0.869
(0.86–0.87)
0.869
(0.86–0.88)
0.868
(0.86–0.88)
0.871
(0.86–0.88)
0.876
(0.87–0.88)
0.777
(0.77–0.79)
0.813
(0.81–0.82)
0.836
(0.83–0.84)
0.844
(0.84–0.85)
0.854
(0.85–0.86)
0.862
(0.85–0.87)
0.870
(0.86–0.88)
0.790
(0.77–0.81)
0.873
(0.85–0.89)
0.704
(0.69–0.72)
0.845
(0.83–0.86)
0.897
(0.88–0.91)
Dovepress
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
263
264
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
(I) Severe stable angina (CCS class III or
IV) despite maximum tolerated doses
of at least two antianginal drugs, a leftventricular ejection fraction of $30%,
and reversible perfusion defects on the
thallium stress test.
(I) Conventional or off-pump CABG.
(E) LVEF ,30%, recent MI within
1 month (trial 1 of 2 only), history
of supraventricular arrhythmia,
previous CABG, renal or
respiratory impairment, previous
stroke, transient ischemic attack,
coagulopathy, coronary disease in
the branches of the circumflex
artery distal to the first obtuse
marginal branch (trial 1 of 2 only).
(I) Conventional or off-pump CABG.
(E) LVEF ,30%, recent MI within
1 month (trial 1 of 2 only), history
of supraventricular arrhythmia,
previous CABG, renal or
respiratory impairment, previous
stroke, transient ischemic attack,
coagulopathy, coronary disease
in the branches of the circumflex
artery distal to the first obtuse
marginal branch (trial 1 of 2 only).
(I) Conventional or off-pump CABG.
(E) Reoperation, emergency CABG,
concomitant major cardiac
procedures, and EF ,30%.
Lowe et al19
Ascione
et al32
Karolak
et al34
Angelini
et al33
(I) Age $80 years, undergoing 1 or
2 vessel PCI.
Inclusion/exclusion
Agarwal
et al27
Reference
Table 3 (Continued)
150
149
2. Off-pump CABG
150
1. Conventional CABG
2. Off-pump CABG
149
169
2. Off-pump CABG
1. Conventional CABG
159
11
74
n
1. Conventional CABG
PCI
PCI
Intervention/Subgroup
62.2
63.7
62.1
60.9
63.1
61.4
59.0
(median)
82.5
Mean
age
81.2
80.0
84.7
86.6
83.4
81.1
82.0
68.0
Gender
(% male)
1 year
1 year
6 years,
11 months
(mean)
6 years,
11 months
(mean)
2–4 years
2–4 years
Post PCI
Pre-PCI
Baseline
1 year
6 months
Baseline
Time
point
80.0
(1.06)
78.0
(1.88)
75.0
(2.18)
72.4
(2.21)
75.2
(2.03)
74.7
(1.88)
24.4
(3.82)
42.3
(2.55)
41.4
(2.68)
38.0
(3.01)
37.0
(4.52)
36.0
(4.82)
PL
86.0
(1.95)
86.0
(1.88)
46.5
(3.67)
45.6
(3.77)
69.6
(2.66)
66.3
(2.81)
50.0
(6.61)
72.4
(3.54)
66.3
(4.01)
42.0
(6.03)
43.0
(8.74)
60.0
(9.64)
AS
91.0
(1.55)
92.0
(1.14)
89.6
(1.67)
88.8
(1.90)
86.8
(1.83)
85.1
(1.79)
45.8
(6.51)
76.5
(3.67)
73.5
(4.11)
40.0
(6.93)
49.0
(6.33)
61.0
(8.74)
AF
79.0
(1.46)
79.0
(1.63)
91.5
(1.55)
89.2
(1.96)
88.1
(1.72)
88.6
(1.28)
74.3
(3.85)
83.7
(1.77)
83.7
(2.08)
63.0
(6.33)
76.0
(6.33)
80.0
(6.33)
TS
81.0
(1.87)
81.0
(1.72)
77.0
(2.15)
74.0
(2.37)
74.8
(2.01)
74.4
(1.79)
38.8
(4.97)
66.7
(3.04)
62.3
(3.30)
21.0
(3.91)
38.0
(8.14)
45.0
(8.44)
DP
0.886
(0.87–0.90)
0.883
(0.87–0.90)
0.879
(0.86–0.90)
0.866
(0.85–0.88)
0.865
(0.85–0.88)
0.862
(0.85–0.88)
0.640
(0.61–0.67)
0.769
(0.75–0.79)
0.756
(0.73–0.78)
0.616
(0.59–0.65)
0.668
(0.62–0.71)
0.692
(0.64–0.74)
EQ-5D
Wijeysundera et al
Dovepress
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
(I) Age $70 years, undergoing cardiac
surgical procedures.
MacDonald
et al28
Gelsomino
et al23
127
1,213
2. Age 70–79 years
CABG
1,142
1. Age $80 years
100
366
2. Radial artery CABG
CABG
367
30
1. Saphenous vein CABG
CABG
83.0
72.0
83.0
78.8
61.0
62.0
60.0
49.6
68.9
49.0
66.0
99.0
99.0
90.0
5 years,
9 months
(median)
1 year,
4 months
(mean)
5 years,
9 months
(median)
Baseline
Baseline
3 months
Baseline
1 year
Baseline
1 year
Baseline
1 week
Baseline
86.8
(2.84)
44.0
(5.72)
83.0
(9.63)
40.2
(2.12)
63.8
(2.44)
42.0
(4.42)
77.0
(7.55)
71.6
(1.44)
53.1
(2.66)
71.9
(0.99)
86.1
(0.82)
69.5
(1.05)
83.3
(0.95)
94.4
(1.86)
35.0
(7.03)
94.0
(4.42)
51.8
(3.41)
92.7
(1.69)
32.0
(7.03)
67.0
(6.51)
9.8
(2.31)
8.3
(2.20)
37.9
(1.12)
51.8
(0.64)
37.0
(1.08)
52.7
(0.67)
92.3
(2.14)
39.0
(7.03)
92.0
(5.46)
53.8
(2.97)
93.4
(1.45)
42.0
(8.59)
79.0
(6.25)
9.9
(1.62)
5.8
(1.77)
65.1
(1.15)
92.5
(0.65)
64.7
(1.16)
91.7
(0.70)
89.3
(1.92)
51.0
(4.16)
88.0
(5.98)
92.5
(1.49)
93.3
(1.39)
52.0
(4.16)
76.0
(5.20)
37.8
(1.11)
59.4
(0.76)
91.2
(0.54)
94.1
(0.54)
92.0
(0.51)
93.8
(0.57)
91.9
(1.84)
34.0
(3.12)
93.0
(4.68)
40.3
(1.81)
82.3
(2.05)
29.0
(3.12)
76.0
(3.64)
22.6
(0.89)
36.1
(0.94)
50.4
(1.02)
83.3
(0.84)
50.1
(1.07)
83.6
(0.86)
0.928
(0.91–0.95)
0.655
(0.62–0.69)
0.918
(0.87–0.96)
0.689
(0.67–0.71)
0.863
(0.85–0.88)
0.643
(0.61–0.68)
0.859
(0.82–0.90)
0.653
(0.63–0.68)
0.653
(0.63–0.68)
0.788
(0.78–0.80)
0.918
(0.91–0.93)
0.783
(0.77–0.80)
0.912
(0.90–0.92)
Notes: SAQ values include standard error, EQ-5D values include 95% confidence intervals. * Valve surgery is aortic or mitral valve replacement/repair. ** Dor or Maze is for treatment of atrial fibrillation.
Abbreviations: I, inclusion criteria; E, exclusion criteria; IHD, ischemic heart disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft;
CCS, Canadian Cardiovascular Society; PTCA, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; OMT, optimal medical therapy; SAQ, Seattle Angina Questionnaire; PL, physical limitation;
TS, treatment satisfaction; AF, angina frequency; AS, angina stability; DP, disease perception; EQ-5D, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions.
(I) Age $80 years, accepted for
cardiac surgical procedures at a peer
review conference.
(E) Preoperative neurological diseases.
(I) Veterans: non-emergent first time
CABG surgery.
(E) Single-vessel bypass with the
internal mammary artery, concerns
about arm functioning, creatinine
level requiring hemodialysis or a
level higher than 2.0 mg/dL,
cardiogenic shock, allergic reactions
to contrast material, robotic
surgery, concomitant valve surgery,*
concomitant Dor or Maze procedure,**
no suitable radial target, participation
in other research studies involving an
intervention.
(I) Age $75 years, candidates for
CABG.
Wagner
et al36
Fruitman
et al29
(I) Admitted to hospital for CABG,
consented to participate in the study.
Chaudhury
et al35
Dovepress
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
265
Wijeysundera et al
u­ tility weights inputted are reflective of the population being
studied. Our catalog provides detailed information on the
population being evaluated, as well as interventions, which
will provide researchers with the information needed such
that they can utilize the most appropriate utility weights when
developing economic models.
Our mapping algorithm was designed to estimate EQ-5D
scores using the scores and standard errors in all five domains
of the SAQ.9 An important limitation is that we had to exclude
studies that did not publish scores on all five domains of the
SAQ. However, our final catalog included estimated EQ-5D
scores across a wide range of baseline patient demographics, disease severity, and various treatment interventions.
A weakness of our systematic review is that we failed to
capture studies that did not use the name of the SAQ scale
in the text of the paper and failed to cite the source of the
questionnaire.
In conclusion, in the current era of budgetary constraints, cost-effectiveness analysis has become increasingly important in decision-making for health resource
allocation. In the absence of directly measured individual
patient preference-based data, our catalog of estimated
EQ-5D scores can be useful in IHD-related economic
evaluations.
Acknowledgment
HCW is supported by a Distinguished Clinical Scientist
Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
Author contributions
HCW was involved in the conception, design, acquisition,
analysis and interpretation of the data, and critically revised
the manuscript. SFZ was involved in the conception and
design, acquisition of data, and interpretation of the data,
and drafted the manuscript. WW was involved in conception
of the study, performed the systematic search, and revised
the manuscript critically. MCB was involved in the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and revised
the manuscript critically. All authors approved the final
manuscript for publication and agree to be accountable for
all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors report no competing interests in this work.
References
1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the
Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for
Clinical Excellence; 2004.
266
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
Dovepress
2. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines
for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd ed.
Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies
in Health; 2006.
3. Longworth L, Buxton M, Sculpher M, Smith D. Estimating utility data
from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur J Health
Econ. 2005;6(4):347–353.
4. World Health Organization. Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide
to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization; 2003.
5. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL.
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes.
3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
6. Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Health state descriptions. Purposes, issues,
a proposal. Med Care. 1996;34(Suppl 12):DS109–DS118.
7. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care.
1997;35(11):1095–1108.
8. Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, et al. Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status
measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(2):
333–341.
9. Wijeysundera HC, Tomlinson G, Norris CM, Ghali WA, Ko DT,
Krahn MD. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the Seattle Angina
Questionnaire in coronary artery disease: a mapping algorithm using a
Bayesian framework. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):481–493.
10. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy.
1996;37(1):53–72.
11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann
Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.
12. Spertus JA, Dewhurst T, Dougherty CM, Nichol P. Testing the
­e ffectiveness of converting patients to long-acting antianginal
­medications: the Quality of Life in Angina Research Trial (QUART).
Am Heart J. 2001;141(4):550–558.
13. Beltrame JF, Weekes AJ, Morgan C, Tavella R, Spertus JA. The
prevalence of weekly angina among patients with chronic stable
angina in primary care practices: the Coronary Artery ­Disease in General Practice (CADENCE) Study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(16):
1491–1499.
14. Makolkin VI, Osadchiy KK. Trimetazidine modified release in the
treatment of stable angina: TRIUMPH studyTRImetazidine MR in
patients with stable angina: unique metabolic PatH. Clin Drug Investig.
2004;24(12):731–738.
15. Stone PH, Gratsiansky NA, Blokhin A, Huang IZ, Meng L;
ERICA Investigators. Antianginal efficacy of ranolazine when added
to treatment with amlodipine: the ERICA (Efficacy of Ranolazine in
Chronic Angina) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(3):566–575.
16. Maxwell AJ, Zapien MP, Pearce GL, MacCallum G, Stone PH.
Randomized trial of a medical food for the dietary management of
chronic, stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(1):37–45.
17. Deaton C, Kimble LP, Veledar E, et al. The synergistic effect of heart
disease and diabetes on self-management, symptoms, and health status.
Heart Lung. 2006;35(5):315–323.
18. Andrell P, Ekre O, Grip L, et al. Fatality, morbidity and quality of life
in patients with refractory angina pectoris. Int J Cardiol. 2011;147(3):
377–382.
19. Lowe HC, Oesterle SN, He KL, MacNeill BD, Burkhoff D. Outcomes
following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients previously
considered “without option”: a subgroup analysis of the PACIFIC trial.
J Interv Cardiol. 2004;17(2):87–91.
20. Ohldin A, Young B, Derleth A, et al. Ethnic differences in satisfaction
and quality of life in veterans with ischemic heart disease. J Natl Med
Assoc. 2004;96(6):799–808.
21. Neil N, Ramsey SD, Cohen DJ, et al. Resource utilization, cost, and
health status impacts of coronary stent versus “optimal” percutaneous
coronary angioplasty: results from the OPUS-I trial. J Interv Cardiol.
2002;15(4):249–255.
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
Dovepress
22. Pettersen KI, Reikvam A, Stavem K. Reliability and validity of the
Norwegian translation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire following
myocardial infarction. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):883–889.
23. Gelsomino S, Lorusso R, Livi U, et al. Cost and cost-effectiveness
of cardiac surgery in elderly patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.
2011;142(5):1062–1073.
24. Fathi R, Haluska B, Short L, Marwick TH. A randomized trial of aggressive lipid reduction for improvement of myocardial ischemia, symptom
status, and vascular function in patients with coronary artery disease
not amenable to intervention. Am J Med. 2003;114(6):445–453.
25. Moore RK, Groves D, Bateson S, et al. Health related quality of life
of patients with refractory angina before and one year after enrolment
onto a refractory angina program. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(3):305–310.
26. Graham MM, Norris CM, Galbraith PD, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA;
APPROACH Investigators. Quality of life after coronary revascularization in the elderly. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(14):1690–1698.
27. Agarwal S, Schechter C, Zaman A. Assessment of functional status
and quality of life after percutaneous coronary revascularisation in
octogenarians. Age Ageing. 2009;38(6):748–751.
28. MacDonald P, Stadnyk K, Cossett J, Klassen G, Johnstone D,
Rockwood K. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly
people. Can J Cardiol. 1998;14(10):1215–1222.
29. Fruitman DS, MacDougall CE, Ross DB. Cardiac surgery in
­octogenarians: can elderly patients benefit? Quality of life after cardiac
surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68(6):2129–2135.
30. Broddadottir H, Jensen L, Norris C, Graham M. Health-related quality
of life in women with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs.
2009;8(1):18–25.
31. Bainey KR, Norris CM, Gupta M, et al. Altered health status and
­quality of life in South Asians with coronary artery disease. Am
Heart J. 2011;162(3):501–506.
32. Ascione R, Reeves BC, Taylor FC, Seehra HK, Angelini GD. Beating
heart against cardioplegic arrest studies (BHACAS 1 and 2): quality
of life at mid-term follow-up in two randomised controlled trials. Eur
Heart J. 2004;25(9):765–770.
33. Angelini GD, Culliford L, Smith DK, et al. Effects of on- and off-pump
coronary artery surgery on graft patency, survival, and health-related
quality of life: long-term follow-up of 2 randomized controlled trials.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(2):295–303.
34. Karolak W, Hirsch G, Buth K, Legare JF. Medium-term outcomes of
­coronary artery bypass graft surgery on pump versus off pump: results
from a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J. 2007;153(4):689–695.
35. Chaudhury S, Sharma S, Pawar AA, et al. Psychological correlates of
outcome after coronary artery bypass graft. Med J Armed Forces India.
2006;62(3):220–223.
36. Wagner TH, Sethi G, Holman W, et al. Costs and quality of life
­associated with radial artery and saphenous vein cardiac bypass surgery:
results from a Veterans Affairs multisite trial. Am J Surg. 2011;202(5):
532–535.
37. de Quadros AS, Lima TC, Rodrigues AP, et al. Quality of life and
health status after percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina
patients: results from the real-world practice. Catheter Cardiovasc
Interv. 2011;77(7):954–960.
38. Wong MS, Chair SY. Changes in health-related quality of life following
percutaneous coronary intervention: a longitudinal study. Int J Nurs
Stud. 2007;44(8):1334–1342.
39. Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, et al. Effect of PCI on quality of
life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(7):
677–687.
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6
Estimated EQ-5D utilities for IHD
40. Rumsfeld JS, Alexander KP, Goff DC Jr, et al. Cardiovascular health:
the importance of measuring patient-reported health status: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation.
2013;127(22):2233–2249.
41. Mommersteeg PM, Denollet J, Spertus JA, Pedersen SS. Health status
as a risk factor in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of current
evidence. Am Heart J. 2009;157(2):208–218.
42. Heidenreich PA, Spertus JA, Jones PG, et al. Health status identifies
heart failure outpatients at risk for hospitalization or death. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2006;47(4):752–756.
43. Chan PS, Soto G, Jones PG, et al. Patient health status and costs in heart
failure: insights from the eplerenone post-acute myocardial infarction
heart failure efficacy and survival study (EPHESUS). Circulation.
2009;119(3):398–407.
44. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Briefing Paper
for Methods Review Workshop on Key Issues in Utility Measurement.
London, UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence;
2007.
45. Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies
mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health
to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):
215–225.
46. Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health
utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health
Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13.
47. Leung YW, Grewal K, Gravely-Witte S, Suskin N, Stewart DE, Grace SL.
Quality of life following participation in cardiac rehabilitation programs
of longer or shorter than 6 months: does duration matter? Population
Health Management. 2011;14(4):181–188.
48. Zhang Z, Mahoney EM, Stables RH, et al. Disease-specific health status
after stent-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary
artery bypass surgery: one-year results from the Stent or Surgery trial.
Circulation. 2003;108(14):1694–1700.
49. Kim J, Henderson RA, Pocock SJ, et al. Health-related quality of life
after interventional or conservative strategy in patients with unstable
angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: one-year
results of the third Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina
(RITA-3). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(2):221–228.
50. Hofer S, Benzer W, Schussler G, von Steinbuchel N, Oldridge NB.
Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease
treated for angina: validity and reliability of German translations of
two specific questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(2):199–212.
51. Arnold SV, Morrow DA, Wang K, et al; MERLIN-TIMI 36
­Investigators. Effects of ranolazine on disease-specific health status and
quality of life among patients with acute coronary syndromes: results
from the MERLIN-TIMI 36 randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual
Outcomes. 2008;1(2):107–115.
52. Arnold SV, Spertus JA, Jones PG, Xiao L, Cohen DJ. The impact of
dyspnea on health-related quality of life in patients with coronary
artery disease: results from the PREMIER registry. Am Heart J.
2009;157(6):1042–1049. e1041.
53. Asadi-Lari M, Packham C, Gray D. Gender difference in health-related
needs and quality of life in patients with acute chest pain. Br J Cardiol.
2005;12(6):459–464.
54. de Jong-Watt WJ, Arthur HM. Anxiety and health-related quality of
life in patients awaiting elective coronary angiography. Heart & Lung.
2004;33(4):237–248.
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
267
Dovepress
Wijeysundera et al
Supplementary material
Search strategy
The following method describes the search strategy used to
collect the references analyzed in this study. This strategy
had three primary facets, outlined below.
• Identification of materials in the primary databases of
medical literature that referenced the Seattle Angina
Questionnaire. These databases were MEDLINE (Ovid),
EMBASE (Elsevier), OVID HealthStar, MEDLINE
(PubMed), and the Cochrane Library (Wiley).
• Use of the citation mapping tools Google Scholar
(Google), Scopus (Elsevier), and Web of Science
(Thomson Reuters), to find all available references to
the paper in which Seattle Angina Questionnaire was
first described by John Spertus et al in the Journal of
the American College of Cardiology in 1995. The search
strategy was to locate the original article by Spertus et al
and export the references that the tool identified as having
cited that article.
• Use of the major clinical trial registries to determine the
studies that used the SAQ as an outcome measure. These
registries have simple search functions, and so our search
terms were “Seattle Angina Questionnaire” or “SAQ”.
The strategy then underwent peer review by a librarian
experienced in the creation and review of systematic
search strategies.
The following search strategy was applied to MEDLINE
(Ovid), HealthStar (Ovid), and EMBASE (Ovid). It was
adapted for use in PubMed by updating the syntax to match
that offered in the PubMed search tool. When searching
the Cochrane Library, only the words “Seattle Angina
­Questionnaire” were used. Databases were searched from
inception until 2013.
1. (Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina
­Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for
­coronary artery disease).m_titl.
2. seattle angina questionnaire.mp.
3. seattle angina questionnaire.tw.
4. (seattle adj3 angina).af.
5. (angina adj3 questionnaire).af.
6. saq.mp.
7. or/1–6.
8. spertus ja.au.
9. 7 and 8.
Dovepress
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
Publish your work in this journal
ClinicoEconomics & Outcomes Research is an international, peerreviewed open-access journal focusing on Health Technology Assessment, Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in the areas of
diagnosis, medical devices, and clinical, surgical and pharmacological
intervention. The economic impact of health policy and health systems
organization also constitute important areas of coverage. The manuscript management system is completely online and includes a very
quick and fair peer-review system, which is all easy to use. Visit
http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.php to read real quotes from
published authors.
Submit your manuscript here: http://www.dovepress.com/clinicoeconomics-and-outcomes-research-journal
268
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
Dovepress
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2014:6