Comparison of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire in Predicting Heart Failure Outcomes.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are relevant independent outcomes in heart failure (HF) care and are predictive of subsequent hospitalization and death in HF. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) are the 2 most widely adopted PROMs specific to HF. We compared their prognostic abilities in a prospective cohort of HF patients. A prospective cohort of subjects from a single-center registry was analyzed with regard to baseline KCCQ and MLHFQ scores and the outcomes of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device implantation and hospitalization. A total of 516 subjects with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 151 subjects with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) were included. Discrimination was assessed using c-statistics based on time-to-event analyses and receiver-operator curves. The additive contribution of MLHFQ was assessed through the change in c-statistic, incremental discrimination index, and category-free net reclassification index. Overall, KCCQ was superior to MLHFQ for predicting death/transplant/ventricular assist device (c-statistic 0.702 [0.666 to 0.738] and 0.658 [0.621 to 0.695] respectively, p value for difference <0.001) and hospitalization (c-statistic 0.640 [0.613 to 0.666] and 0.624 [0.597 to 0.651], respectively, p value for difference 0.022). However, this difference was statistically nonsignificant in the HFpEF group alone. When analyzing the additional prognostic information afforded by adding MLHFQ to KCCQ in the overall, HFrEF, and HFpEF groups there was no significant improvement, although adding KCCQ to MLHFQ did significantly improve risk stratification. Scoring based upon the abbreviated KCCQ-12 did not reduce the prognostic accuracy of KCCQ. In conclusion, KCCQ is more prognostic of death/transplant/left ventricular assist device and hospitalization than MLHFQ in a combined cohort of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, although the effect in HFpEF was less pronounced. KCCQ should be the preferred PROM for patients with HF if prognostication is a desired goal of using the PROMs.

Epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical outcomes for heart failure patients with a mid-range ejection fraction.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) patients with a mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are not well characterized. Accordingly, we examined the epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical outcomes of HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40-50%. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 168 patients with an LVEF between 40-50% at enrollment into a HF registry, and determined whether LVEF was improved, worsened, or the same compared to a prior LVEF. Three subgroups of HFmrEF patients were identified: HFmrEF improved (prior LVEF <40%); HFmrEF deteriorated (prior LVEF >50%); HFmrEF unchanged (prior LVEF 40-50%). The majority of patients (73%) were HFmrEF improved, 17% were HFmrEF deteriorated, and 10% were HFmrEF unchanged. The demographics of the HFmrEF cohort were heterogeneous, with more coronary artery disease in the HFmrEF improved group and more hypertension and diastolic dysfunction in the HFmrEF deteriorated group. HFmrEF improved patients had significantly (P<0.001) better clinical outcomes relative to matched patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, and significantly (P<0.01) improved clinical outcomes relative to HFmrEF deteriorated patients, whereas clinical outcomes of the HFmrEF deteriorated subgroup of patients were not significantly different from matched HF patients with preserved ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a mid-range LVEF are heterogeneous. Obtaining historical information with regard to prior LVEF allows one to identify a distinct pathophysiological substrate and clinical course for HFmrEF patients. Viewed together, these results suggest that in the modern era of HF therapeutics, the use of LVEF to categorize the pathophysiology of HF may be misleading, and argue for establishing a new taxonomy for classifying HF patients.

Comparable performance of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), no valid measure of patients' health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) exists. We evaluated the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of HF with reduced EF, in patients with HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a prospective HF registry, we dichotomized patients into HF with reduced EF (EF≤ 40) and HFpEF (EF≥50). The associations between New York Heart Association class, a commonly used criterion standard, and KCCQ Overall Summary and Total Symptom domains were evaluated using Spearman correlations and 2-way ANOVA with differences between patients with HF with reduced EF and HFpEF tested with interaction terms. Predictive validity of the KCCQ Overall Summary scores was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves for death and all-cause hospitalization. Covariate adjustment was made using Cox proportional hazards models. Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α. Among 849 patients, 200 (24%) had HFpEF. KCCQ summary scores were strongly associated with New York Heart Association class in both patients with HFpEF (r=-0.62; P<0.001) and HF with reduced EF (r=-0.55; P=0.27 for interaction). One-year event-free rates by KCCQ category among patients with HFpEF were 0 to 25=13.8%, 26 to 50=59.1%, 51 to 75=73.8%, and 76 to 100=77.8% (log rank P<0.001), with no significant interaction by EF (P=0.37). The KCCQ domains demonstrated high internal consistency among patients with HFpEF (Cronbach's α=0.96 for overall summary and ≥0.69 in all subdomains). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFpEF, the KCCQ seems to be a valid and reliable measure of health status and offers excellent prognostic ability. Future studies should extend and replicate our findings, including the establishment of its responsiveness to clinical change.