Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Qual Life Res. 2019 Aug;28(8):2257-2279. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02166-0. Epub 2019 Mar 30.
To determine the effect of revascularisation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) on QoL in the first and second year following diagnosis, to compare the effect depicted by Short Form Six Dimensions (SF-6D) and EuroQoL five Dimensions (EQ-5D) utilities, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and to analyse heterogeneity in treatment response.
Longitudinal data from 229 PAD patients were obtained in an observational study in southern Netherlands. Utility scores were calculated with the international (SF-6D) and Dutch (EQ-5D) tariffs. We analysed treatment effect at years 1 and 2 through propensity score-matched ANCOVAs. Thereby, we estimated the marginal means (EMMs) of revascularisation and conservative treatment, and identified covariates of revascularisation effect.
A year after diagnosis, 70 patients had been revascularised; the EMMs of revascularisation were 0.038, 0.077 and 0.019 for SF-6D, EQ-5D and VAS, respectively (always in this order). For conservative treatment these were - 0.017, 0.038 and 0.021. At 2-year follow-up, the EMMs of revascularisation were 0.015, 0.077 and 0.027, for conservative treatment these were - 0.020, 0.013 and - 0.004. Baseline QoL (and rest pain in year 2) were covariates of treatment effect.
We measured positive effects of revascularisation and conservative treatment on QoL a year after diagnosis, the effect of revascularisation was sustained over 2 years. The magnitude of effect varied between the metrics and was largest for the EQ-5D, which may be most suitable for QoL measurement in PAD patients. Baseline QoL influenced revascularisation effect, in clinical practice this may inform expected QoL gain in individual patients.
确定外周动脉疾病(PAD)血运重建对诊断后第一年和第二年生活质量(QoL)的影响,比较短表 6 维度(SF-6D)和欧洲五维健康量表(EQ-5D)效用值、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分所描绘的影响,并分析治疗反应的异质性。
在荷兰南部的一项观察性研究中,获取了 229 名 PAD 患者的纵向数据。使用国际(SF-6D)和荷兰(EQ-5D)量表计算效用评分。通过倾向评分匹配的协方差分析(ANCOVA),我们分析了第 1 年和第 2 年的治疗效果。通过这种方法,我们估计了血运重建和保守治疗的边缘均值(EMMs),并确定了血运重建效果的协变量。
诊断后 1 年,70 名患者接受了血运重建;SF-6D、EQ-5D 和 VAS 的血运重建 EMM 分别为 0.038、0.077 和 0.019(均以此顺序排列)。保守治疗的 EMM 分别为 -0.017、0.038 和 0.021。在 2 年随访时,血运重建的 EMM 分别为 0.015、0.077 和 0.027,保守治疗的 EMM 分别为 -0.020、0.013 和 -0.004。基线 QoL(和第 2 年的静息痛)是治疗效果的协变量。
我们测量了诊断后 1 年血运重建和保守治疗对 QoL 的积极影响,血运重建的效果在 2 年内持续存在。不同指标的效应大小不同,EQ-5D 的效应最大,这可能最适合 PAD 患者的 QoL 测量。基线 QoL 影响血运重建效果,在临床实践中,这可以为个体患者预期的 QoL 获益提供信息。