Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures in adult heart-transplant patients: a systematic review

Bernardo Perez Villa; Sultan Alotaibi; Nicolas Brozzi; Kurt P Spindler; Jose Navia; Jaime Hernandez-Montfort

doi:10.1186/s41687-022-00431-4

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures in adult heart-transplant patients: a systematic review

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Mar 16;6(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00431-4.

Authors

Bernardo Perez Villa¹, Sultan Alotaibi², Nicolas Brozzi³, Kurt P Spindler², Jose Navia³, Jaime Hernandez-Montfort⁴

Affiliations

¹ Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA. perezvb@ccf.org.
² Heart Center, Segeberger Kliniken GmbH, Bad Segeberg, Germany.
³ Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
⁴ Baylor Scott and White Health, Central Texas, USA.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to describe the prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adult heart-transplant (HT) patients.

Methods: A systematic search was performed on Ovid Medline, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and PubMed. The study protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42021225398), and the last search was performed on January 7, 2021. We included studies of adult HT patients where generic and disease-specific PROMs were used as prognostic indicators for survival, readmissions, HT complications, and the onset of new comorbidities. We excluded studies that used clinician-reported and patient-experience outcomes. The Quality in Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) was used to measure the risk of bias of the included studies.

Results: We included five observational studies between 1987 and 2015, whose populations' mean age ranged from 43 to 56 years and presented a higher proportion of males than females. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire demonstrated a negative correlation with readmissions (coefficient = - 1.177, p = 0.031), and the EQ-5D showed a negative correlation with the onset of neuromuscular disease after HT (coefficient = - 0.158, p < 0.001). The Millon Behavioral Health Inventory and the Nottingham Health Profile demonstrated a statistically significant association as survival predictors (p = 0.002 and p < 0.05, respectively). A moderate overall risk of bias was reported in three studies, one study resulted in a low risk of bias, and a proportion of more than 75% of males in each of the studies. High heterogeneity between the studies impeded establishing a link between PROMs and prognostic value.

Conclusion: There is low evidence supporting PROMs usage as prognostic tools in adult HT patients. Comparing outcomes of PROMS to routine prognostic in wider and systematic settings is warranted. Systematic use of PROMs in clinical settings is warranted.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Heart transplantation; PROMs; Patient-reported outcomes measures; Prognostic value.

Publication types

Review