Impact of Syncope on Quality of Life: Validation of a Measure in Patients Undergoing Tilt Testing

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Recurrent syncope has a significant impact on quality of life. The development of measurement scales to assess this impact that are easy to use in clinical settings is crucial. The objective of the present study is a preliminary validation of the Impact of Syncope on Quality of Life questionnaire for the Portuguese population. METHODS: The instrument underwent a process of translation, validation, analysis of cultural appropriateness and cognitive debriefing. A population of 39 patients with a history of recurrent syncope (>1 year) who underwent tilt testing, aged 52.1 ± 16.4 years (21-83), 43.5% male, most in active employment (n=18) or retired (n=13), constituted a convenience sample. The resulting Portuguese version is similar to the original, with 12 items in a single aggregate score, and underwent statistical validation, with assessment of reliability, validity and stability over time. RESULTS: With regard to reliability, the internal consistency of the scale is 0.9. Assessment of convergent and discriminant validity showed statistically significant results (p<0.01). Regarding stability over time, a test-retest of this instrument at six months after tilt testing with 22 patients of the sample who had not undergone any clinical intervention found no statistically significant changes in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that this instrument is of value for assessing quality of life in patients with recurrent syncope in Portugal.

Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.