Asymptomatic long-term survivors of coronary artery bypass surgery enjoy a quality of life equal to the general population

Background Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among long-term survivors of coronary artery bypass surgery is an important outcome that has been little studied at the population level. Methods A postal survey was conducted in 1999 to 2000 in patients 6 to 20 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in Western-Australia. A random stratified sample of 2500 was drawn from 8910 patients who had their first CABG surgery in 1980 to 1993. Health-related quality of life was measured with Short Form 36 and EuroQol visual analogue scale. Results Response was 82% (n = 2061). Health-related quality of life declined with age and was similar for men and women, although scores for women were worse for physical functioning. Compared with Australian population norms, the age- and sex-standardized scores of survivors of CABG were generally worse, mainly in the physical domain. Reported angina at the time of follow-up (33%), symptoms of heart failure equivalent to New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II to IV (34%), and comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension were associated with poorer HRQOL. For both men and women without angina or heart failure at follow-up, HRQOL was no different from that of the general population. Conclusion Overall, the quality of life among long-term survivors of CABG is worse than that of the general population, the difference being mainly attributable to recurrent symptoms and comorbidities. Quality of life for those without angina or heart failure at follow-up was equivalent to the population norms, providing an incentive to maximize efforts to abolish angina and ameliorate heart failure symptoms.

Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Background It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80) Conclusion In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care.