Search

The primary aim of revascularization in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is symptom relief. The severity of symptoms is usually evaluated by the physician, not by the patient. We examined the agreement between physician- and patient-reported Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) scores among patients scheduled for elective coronary angiography in a cross-sectional study. Patients (n = 650) and cardiologists evaluated the severity of angina symptoms by filling the CCS questionnaire before coronary angiography. Patients were divided into those without CAD (stenosis diameter <50%, n = 445) and those with CAD (stenosis diameter >50%, n = 205). CAD patients were further divided into three groups according to disease severity (single-, double- or triple-vessel disease). The mean age of the patients was 67.6 (9.9) years and 50.6% were women. In 51.8% (95% CI 44.5%-59.0%) of patients with CAD and 51.9% (95% CI 47.0%-56.8%) of those without, physician- and patient reported CCS scores agreed. The physician reported better CCS scores in 33.9% (95% CI 27.6%-40.7%) of patients with CAD and 36.2% (95% CI 31.8%-41.0%) of patients without CAD. The proportions of full or partial agreement between physician- and patient reported CCS scores were similar across the CAD severity groups. To summarize, we observed a significant discrepancy between the physician- and patient-reported symptom severity in patients with or without CAD scheduled for angiography. The physician underestimated the symptoms in third of the cases. Thus, patient-reported symptom severity, rather than physician's evaluation, should be the cornerstone of treatment decisions., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: Prof. Janne Martikainen is a founding partner of ESiOR Oy. This company was not involved in carrying out this research. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare., (Copyright: © 2023 Lavikainen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disease-specific instruments measure HRQoL from different aspects, although generic instruments often contain dimensions that reflect common symptoms. We evaluated how the change in 15D HRQoL and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading of angina severity correlate among coronary artery disease patients during 12-month follow-up., Methods: Altogether 1 271 patients scheduled for coronary angiography between June 2015 and February 2017 returned the 15D HRQoL and CCS questionnaires before angiography and after one-year follow-up as a part of routine clinical practice. Spearman correlations between one-year changes in the CCS and the 15D and its dimensions were evaluated. Changes in 15D were classified into 5 categories based on the reported minimal important difference (MID) for the instrument., Results: Change in the CCS grade correlated moderately with the MID-based change in the 15D (r = 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.39). Correlations between these instruments were similar in different age groups, between sexes and treatment modalities. Of the individual 15D dimensions, changes in breathing (r = 0.40) and vitality (r = 0.30) had the strongest correlations with CCS change., Conclusion: The symptom-based evaluation of the change in the CCS grade may not catch the full benefit or harm of the treatment and vice versa, a generic instrument, such as 15D, likely does not fully capture change in disease-specific symptoms. Thus, generic and disease-specific instruments are complementary and should be used in conjunction., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Prof Martikainen is a founding partner of ESiOR Oy and a board member of Siltana Oy. These companies were not involved in carrying out this research. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. No other disclosures were reported.