Open Access

Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the coronary revascularization outcome questionnaire

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201715:37

DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0615-y

Received: 18 May 2016

Accepted: 8 February 2017

Published: 15 February 2017

Abstract

Background

People with ischemic heart disease have increased drastically, and their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has been increasingly important. The Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ) is a widely used tool to assess the quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. The purpose of this study was to rigorously examine the psychometric properties of the CROQ in patients who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

The CROQ was translated into Korean. A total of 209 patients before PCI and 169 patients after PCI were recruited from a university hospital in Korea and completed questionnaires. In terms of statistical analyses, internal consistency, concurrent validity with using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire-Korean version (SAQ-K), and construct validity using exploratory factor analysis were assessed. Effective size statistics were calculated.

Results

The internal consistency coefficients for all subscales of the CROQ were above 0.70, except the domain of adverse effects. The concurrent validity was mostly supported by the pattern of association among CROQ-K, SAQ-K, and SF-12. The results of EFA showed the core items of the CROQ had 7 factors. Large effect sizes were observed for the symptoms and the psychosocial functioning scales.

Conclusions

The Korean version of the CROQ is a valid and reliable scale for assessing HRQOL in patients with coronary artery disease.

Keywords

Coronary revascularization outcome questionnaire Percutaneous coronary intervention Quality of life Reliability Validity

Background

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) has been the leading cause of death worldwide [1]. In Korea, heart disease is the second major cause of death and has increased drastically due to the rapidly aging population and changes in diet [2]. The cause of death of 71,174 of the 267,692 people who died in 2014 was cardiovascular disease, including a considerable number of people who died due to ischemic heart disease [2]. With the high mortality associated with IHD, medical costs are significantly higher for this condition compared to other chronic diseases [3].

The development of new treatment methods and prevention programs has been studied to reduce the mortality and medical costs associated with IHD [4, 5]. Coronary revascularization, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), is the most common procedure used to treat IHD [4, 6]. Many studies have evaluated the effectiveness of coronary revascularization by referring to the mortality rate or the results of clinical laboratory tests [4, 7]. However, mortality rates and laboratory findings do not fully reflect patient well-being [8]. Quality of life should also be considered to determine the optimum treatment.

The quality of life of patients with IHD rapidly declines due to uncertainty about the prognosis of the disease and the burden of medical expenses [9, 10]. In addition, there is a high risk of re-hospitalization due to the relapse of acute coronary syndrome or complications of the procedure [9, 11]. Therefore, disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) should be assessed to understand changes in quality of life in IHD patients after revascularization.

Some generic measures, such as the SF-36 and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHD), have been used to evaluate quality of life in patients after revascularization. However, these instruments were not designed to detect changes in outcomes related to cardiac events. In addition, generic instruments have been shown to be less responsive to changes after treatment than are disease-specific instruments [12].

Several disease-specific HRQOL questionnaires, such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Angina Pectoris Quality of Life Questionnaire (APQLQ), can assess the HRQOL of patients with coronary artery disease. The SAQ has been translated into the Korean language [13] and is used to evaluate outcomes related to coronary artery disease [14]. Unfortunately, the SAQ does not include items related to the adverse effects of CABG or PCI. Thus, it is difficult to measure changes after CABG or PCI, such as adverse effects.

The Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ) was developed to assess not only the HRQOL of patients with coronary artery disease, but also the adverse effects of CABG or percutaneous transluminal coronary angiography (PTCA) [15]. The validity and reliability of the CROQ- CABG and PTCA have been well established [15], and this inventory is just as responsive as the SAQ and even more responsive to change than the generic questionnaire [12]. It has also been translated into Japanese and Persian languages [16, 17], but a Korean version is not available. In Korea, PCI is more commonly used than CABG to treat IHD [18]. In this light, the aim of this study was to (1) translate the CORQ-PTCA into Korean and (2) assess the reliability and validity of the CORQ-PTCA among Korean-speaking patients.

Methods

CROQ-PTCA

The CRQO-PTCA has two versions: the CROQ-PTCA Pre-revascularization and the CROQ-PTCA Post-revascularization. Both versions contain 32 core evaluation items: symptoms (7 items), physical functioning (8 items), cognitive functioning (3 items), and psychosocial functioning (14 items), as well as one descriptive item that is not included in the scale scores [15]. The CROQ has additional post-revascularization items about satisfaction (6 items) and adverse effects (6 items) and two descriptive items that are not included in the scale scores. Each item is rated using three six-point Likert scales. The items in each scale are summed and then converted to a 0–100 scale, with 100 representing the best outcome.

Translation

The CROQ-PTCA was translated using standardized forward-backward procedures [19]. First, the original version of the CROQ-PTCA was obtained from the original author, and permission was granted for its use in this study. Two nursing faculty members who were native Korean speakers and proficient in English translated it into Korean. The translated version was evaluated for clarity, word choice, and agreement with the original version by an expert panel, including a cardiologist, a preventive medicine physician, and two nursing faculty members. The expert panel made the following changes: (1) the terms “half a mile” and “100 yards” were changed to “around 1 km” and “around 100 m” because Korea uses the metric system. (2) The word “groin” was changed to “puncture site” because both the radial and femoral sites are used for catheter insertion in the PCI procedure in Korea. After the expert’s evaluation, the tool was back-translated into English by a bilingual individual. The expert panel then re-evaluated the back-translated version of the CROQ-PTCA to assess its agreement with the original version. After a professional Korean editor proofread the final version, a pilot study with 10 patients was conducted to evaluate whether the Korean version of the CROQ-PTCA was clear and easy to understand. This investigation led to some minor modifications of the Korean medical terms.

Patients

Participants were recruited from cardiologic clinics in a university hospital in J City, Korea. The inclusion criteria were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) diagnosed with IHD by a cardiologist; (4) ability to read and write Korean; and (5) intact cognitive function. The exclusion criterion was (1) previous experiences with PCI or CABG. Eligibility to participate was confirmed by the cardiologist who was one of the co-investigators in this study. The eligible patients were sorted into two groups on the basis of treatment stage: a pre-PCI group who were recommended to undergo elective PCI by a cardiologist and a post-PCI group who had undergone PCI via the radial or femoral artery three months prior. The three-month point was selected because the majority of patients should have recovered from the procedure by then, and only a few patients would still be experiencing adverse effects.

Patients who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study. After providing written informed consent, the patients were asked to complete a series of questionnaires including the CROQ-PTCA, SAQ-K, and SF-12-K with demographic characteristics. A total of 209 patients participated in the pre-PCI assessment. In addition, 169 patients participated in the post-PCI assessment. Twenty-eight patients completed both pre- and post-PCI assessments. The data were collected between January 2014 and December 2014, after receiving approval from the institutional review board.

Measures

The Seattle Angina Questionnaire-Korean (SAQ-K) was used to assess the concurrent validity of the CROQ-PTCA (K). The SAQ-K consists of five domains: physical limitations (nine items), angina stability (one item), angina frequency (two items), treatment satisfaction (four items), and quality of life (three items) [20]. Each item is rated using 5–6-point Likert scales. Items in each scale are summed and then converted to a 0–100 scale. A score of 100 points represents the best outcome.

The SF-12 was also used to assess the concurrent validity of the CROQ-PTCA (K). The SF-12 is an abbreviated version of the SF-36 and contains 12 items covering eight domains (physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health), which produce two summary scores: the physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS) scores. The PCS and the MCS are standardized (mean = 50, SD = 10). For each of the eight domains, the items are summed and then converted to a 0–100 scale, with high scores indicating better outcomes.

Statistical analysis

Patient characteristics in the pre-PCI and post-PCI groups were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Scores for each domain of the CROQ-PTCA were evaluated by descriptive analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was used to examine the internal consistency, and the item-total correlation coefficients were also computed. A Cronbach’s alpha \( \ge 0 \).70 and item-total correlation coefficients >0.2 were deemed statistically acceptable [21]. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between the scores of the CROQ-PTCA (K), SAQ-K, and SF-12 (K) questionnaires were used to assess the concurrent validity. To evaluate the construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was performed. After an assessment of all eigenvalues greater than 1, the number of domains was determined for the core items, those associated with treatment satisfaction, and items related to the adverse effects of PCI. Responsiveness was the ability of the scales to detect clinically important changes over time [22]. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the results before and three months after revascularization. Effect size statistics were calculated as the mean change score between pre- and post-PCI assessments divided by the standard deviation of scores at the pre-PCI assessment [22].

Results

Patient characteristics

Table 1 shows the characteristics of participants. Most participants were male (80.9% in the pre-PCI group, 76.9% in the post-PCI group) and lived with a spouse (79.7% in the pre-PCI group, 74.0% in the post-PCI group). The mean age was 60.8 (±10.56) years in the pre-PCI group and 61.6 (±9.76) years in the post-PCI group. The average number of years that patients had been receiving treatment for ischemic heart disease was 3.51 in the pre-PCI group and 2.72 in the post-PCI group.
Table 1

Patient Characteristics

Variables

Pre-PCI

(n = 209)

Post-PCI

(n = 169)

n

%

n

%

Sex

Male

169

80.9

130

76.9

Female

40

19.1

39

23.1

Education

≤ Middle school

97

46.4

94

55.6

≥ High school

112

53.6

75

44.4

Income

≤100

64

30.9

58

34.3

(10,000 won)

101–300

94

45.4

82

48.5

 

≥301

49

23.7

29

17.2

Living arrangement

With spouse

165

79.7

125

74.0

With someone

9

4.3

19

11.2

Alone

33

15.9

25

14.8

Employed

No

70

33.5

65

38.5

Yes

139

66.5

104

61.5

Puncture site

Radial artery

  

85

50.3

Femoral artery

  

84

49.7

  

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Age (years)

 

60.84

10.56

61.64

9.76

Duration of treatment (years)

3.51

4.79

2.72

2.90

PCI percutaneous coronary intervention

Scores and Reliability of the CROQ-PTCA (K)

The mean score of each domain and the reliability of the CROQ-PTCA (K) are shown in Table 2. Cronbach’s alphas were computed for each domain based on the pre and post-PCI data as indicators of internal consistency. Cronbach’s alphas of the domains of symptoms, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, and psychosocial functioning in the core items in both the pre- and post-PCI assessments as well as the domain of satisfaction in the post-PCI assessment were ≥0.70. However, the domain of adverse effects had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.47. The means of the item-total correlations for the domains of the CROQ-PTCA (K) ranged from 0.27–0.83.
Table 2

Scores and Reliability of the CROQ-PTCA (K)

 

Mean (SD)

Reliability (Cronbach’s α)

Item-total correlation (Mean)

CROQ-PTCA Pre (N = 209)

   

 Symptoms

74.88 (21.46)

0.80

0.16–0.77 (0.52)

 Physical functioning

92.14 (15.95)

0.88

0.49–0.79 (0.68)

 Cognitive functioning

96.91 (10.90)

0.91

0.75–0.87 (0.83)

 Psychosocial functioning

93.22 (15.05)

0.96

0.65–0.88 (0.79)

CROQ-PTCA Post (N = 169)

   

 Symptoms

94.76 (10.35)

0.78

0.37–0.71 (0.52)

 Physical functioning

96.93 (9.69)

0.89

0.64–0.78 (0.70)

 Cognitive functioning

96.21 (8.78)

0.89

0.84–0.89 (0.83)

 Psychosocial functioning

85.52 (13.03)

0.92

0.42–0.77 (0.64)

 Satisfaction

85.83 (14.66)

0.82

0.51–0.69 (0.61)

 Adverse effects

98.35 (5.44)

0.47

0.08–0.45 (0.27)

  Radial artery (n = 85)

98.62 (4.82)

0.33

0.03–0.51 (0.22)

  Femoral artery (n = 84)

98.06 (6.01)

0.59

0.08–0.72 (0.42)

CROQ Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Validity

The results of the exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of the 32 core items of the CROQ-PTCA (K) are shown in Table 3. The analyses yielded seven factors that explained a total of 79.4% of the variance in the pre-PCI test and 75.7% in the post-PCI test. The KMO measure was 0.89 on the pre-PCI test and 0.84 on the post-PCI test. Table 4 shows the results of the EFA of items regarding satisfaction with and adverse effects of the CROQ-PTCA (K)-Post. The domain of satisfaction was identified as having two factors, which explained 80.3% of the variance. Regarding the items related to these adverse effects, three factors were identified, which explained 76.9% of the variance.
Table 3

Factor analyses of CROQ-PTCA (K) Core Items in the Pre- and Post-PCI tests

 

Pre-PCI

Post-PCI

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

Symptoms

              

 Chest pain

0.07

0.03

-0.05

0.02

0.91

0.11

0.09

0.18

-0.02

0.16

0.01

-0.12

0.75

0.38

 Chest discomfort

0.03

0.08

-0.05

0.04

0.90

0.11

0.04

0.14

-0.11

0.23

-0.04

0.01

0.69

0.33

 SOB

0.09

0.13

0.23

0.28

0.63

0.00

-0.33

0.61

0.12

0.12

-0.09

0.33

0.30

-0.08

 Radiating pain

0.10

0.06

0.15

0.11

0.55

-0.01

0.55

0.35

0.26

0.03

0.18

0.07

0.20

0.69

 Palpitations

0.23

-0.13

0.32

0.02

0.20

0.52

0.01

0.16

0.20

0.12

0.16

0.13

0.13

0.66

 Frequency of use of nitroglycerin

0.06

0.32

0.46

0.25

0.05

-0.29

-0.08

0.03

0.12

-0.07

0.00

0.10

0.78

-0.14

 Global trouble

0.24

0.09

0.22

0.41

0.69

0.04

0.03

0.53

-0.01

0.27

-0.11

-0.08

0.52

0.28

Physical Functioning

              

 Moderate activities

0.28

0.23

0.17

0.45

0.09

0.66

-0.18

0.66

0.14

0.00

0.16

0.08

0.16

0.38

 Lifting and carrying

0.34

0.34

0.04

0.35

0.19

0.56

-0.28

0.80

0.12

0.15

0.05

-0.11

0.05

0.14

 Climbing flights of stairs

0.30

0.09

0.18

0.72

0.25

0.10

-0.05

0.62

0.25

0.02

0.15

0.11

0.38

-0.21

 Climbing one flight of stairs

0.15

0.15

0.27

0.76

0.15

0.22

-0.01

0.78

0.17

0.01

0.19

0.17

0.09

-0.02

 Bending, kneeling, stooping

0.11

0.40

0.09

0.46

-0.03

0.35

0.20

0.77

-0.04

0.06

0.10

0.17

-0.06

0.26

 Walking about 1 km

0.33

0.20

0.13

0.76

0.09

0.04

0.11

0.68

0.26

0.06

0.12

-0.04

0.31

-0.21

 Walking about 100 m

0.21

0.21

0.20

0.76

0.16

0.16

0.25

0.83

0.12

0.00

0.14

-0.07

0.02

0.09

 Bathing or dressing

0.08

0.20

0.26

0.18

0.05

0.71

0.26

0.82

-0.11

0.07

0.00

-0.01

-0.14

0.24

Cognitive Functioning

              

 Difficulty reasoning

0.18

0.53

0.51

0.26

-0.01

0.20

0.41

0.09

0.22

0.18

0.32

0.85

0.03

0.08

 Forgetting things

0.14

0.35

0.49

0.34

-0.02

0.05

0.45

0.01

0.07

0.18

0.25

0.84

-0.03

0.02

 Difficulty with activities involving concentration

0.25

0.49

0.44

0.27

0.01

0.13

0.47

0.08

0.25

0.14

0.30

0.82

0.04

0.11

Psychosocial Functioning

              

 Worries about heart condition

0.87

0.24

0.21

0.21

0.11

0.13

0.07

0.04

0.17

0.88

0.05

0.12

0.09

0.00

 Worries about doing too much

0.83

0.22

0.23

0.29

0.12

0.14

0.02

0.06

0.26

0.87

0.05

0.19

0.09

0.05

 Worries about having a heart attack or dying

0.85

0.25

0.24

0.26

0.11

0.11

0.06

0.11

0.25

0.91

0.03

0.10

0.08

0.08

 Fear of pain or discomfort

0.84

0.30

0.16

0.19

0.10

0.13

0.05

0.10

0.25

0.91

0.03

0.05

0.09

0.08

 Uncertain about the future

0.49

0.61

0.34

0.24

0.06

0.23

0.02

0.07

0.48

0.64

0.19

0.14

-0.04

0.02

 Depressed

0.21

0.88

0.18

0.10

0.14

-0.03

-0.01

0.07

0.84

0.20

0.12

0.11

0.02

-0.04

 Frustrated or impatient

0.27

0.87

0.15

0.20

0.12

0.04

-0.01

0.18

0.87

0.18

-0.01

0.13

0.09

0.04

 Interferences with enjoyment of life

0.58

0.56

0.23

0.23

0.06

0.25

0.10

0.19

0.75

0.36

0.18

0.06

0.01

0.16

 Difficult to keep a positive outlook

0.48

0.65

0.29

0.15

0.06

0.25

0.13

0.12

0.85

0.23

0.15

0.15

-0.02

0.20

 Difficult to plan ahead

0.39

0.66

0.36

0.19

0.08

0.21

0.22

0.08

0.78

0.33

0.16

0.16

0.03

0.16

 Overprotective family or friends

0.20

0.17

0.88

0.14

0.07

0.15

0.05

0.06

0.06

-0.03

0.78

0.07

0.02

0.10

 Feeling like a burden

0.26

0.16

0.87

0.14

0.08

0.18

0.07

0.11

0.18

0.06

0.73

0.44

-0.04

0.09

 Feeling restricted in social activities

0.21

0.20

0.86

0.15

0.07

0.22

0.09

0.16

0.10

0.13

0.80

0.23

0.00

0.00

 Worries about going too far from home

0.27

0.36

0.67

0.33

0.07

0.27

0.06

0.22

0.21

0.13

0.72

0.30

-0.04

0.15

Contribution rate

  

79.4%

       

75.7

   

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

  

0.89

       

0.84

   

CROQ Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, SOB shortness of breath

Table 4

Factor Analyses of CROQ-PTCA (K) Post Items

Satisfaction (n = 169)

Adverse effects (n = 169)

 

Factor 1

Factor 1

 

Factor 1

Factor 1

Factor 1

Satisfaction with the results of the operation

0.89

0.26

Pain at the puncture site

<0.01

0.84

0.24

Satisfaction with information about the operation

0.96

0.18

Tenderness around the puncture site

0.17

0.19

0.71

Satisfaction with information about recovering from the operation

0.96

0.16

Numbness or tingling at the puncture site

-0.02

0.89

-0.05

Heart condition compared to before the operation

0.17

0.80

Bruising around the puncture site

0.94

-0.02

0.02

Speed of recovery

0.13

0.81

Catheter-related problems at the puncture site

-0.07

-0.03

0.85

Expectation of results

0.20

0.80

Concern over the appearance of bruises

0.94

0.01

0.07

Contribution rate

80.3%

Contribution rate

76.9%

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

0.76

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

0.52

CROQ Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Table 5 shows the correlation among the scores of the CROQ-PTCA, SAQ, and SF-12. The CROQ symptom had positive correlations with the PCS of the SF-12 in the post-test and the angina frequency scale of the SAQ in the pre- (r = 0.72) and post-PCI (r = 0.79) tests. The CROQ physical functioning was positively correlated with the PCS of the SF-12 (r = 0.62 and r = 0.43) and the physical limitation scale of the SAQ (r = 0.86 and r = 0.87). The CROQ cognitive functioning was positively correlated with PCS (r = 0.50 and r = 0.37) and MCS (r = 0.34 and r = 0.43) of the SF-12 for both tests and with the quality of life scale of the SAQ in the pre-PCI test (r = 0.28). The CROQ psychosocial functioning was positively correlated with the PCS (r = 0.57 and r = 0.49) and MCS (r = 0.31 and r = 0.52) of the SF-12 and the quality of life scale of the SAQ (r = 0.45 and r = 0.45) on both tests. The CROQ satisfaction was positively correlated with the treatment satisfaction scale of the SAQ (r = 0.59). The CROQ’s adverse effects were positively correlated with the quality of life scale of the SAQ (r = 0.22).
Table 5

Concurrent Validity of the CROQ-PTCA (K)

CROQ scale

SF-12

SAQ

 

PCS (N = 209)

MCS (N = 209)

Physical Limitation Scale (N = 208)

Angina Stability Scale (N = 209)

Angina Frequency Scale (N = 209)

Treatment Satisfaction Scale (N = 209)

Quality of Life Scale (N = 209)

CROQ-PTCA Pre

       

 Symptoms

0.13

-0.21**

0.54**

-0.17*

0.72**

0.44**

0.47**

 Physical functioning

0.62**

0.23**

0.86**

0.38**

0.61**

0.18*

0.40**

 Cognitive functioning

0.50**

0.34**

0.52**

0.22**

0.47**

0.09

0.28**

 Psychosocial functioning

0.57**

0.31**

0.70**

0.28**

0.56**

0.23**

0.45**

 

PCS (N = 169)

MCS (N = 169)

The Physical Limitation Scale (N = 160)

The Angina Stability Scale (N = 169)

The Angina Frequency Scale (N = 169)

The Treatment Satisfaction Scale (N = 169)

The Quality of Life scale (N = 169)

CROQ-PTCA Post

       

 Symptoms

0.27**

0.08

0.57**

0.02

0.79**

0.17*

0.39**

 Physical functioning

0.43**

0.22**

0.87**

0.28**

0.55**

0.16*

0.27**

 Cognitive functioning

0.37**

0.43**

0.10

0.02

<0.01

0.14

0.02

 Psychosocial functioning

0.49**

0.52**

0.33**

0.05

0.18*

0.19*

0.45**

 Satisfaction

0.36**

0.32**

0.15

0.01

0.07

0.591*

0.19*

 Adverse effects

0.07

-0.06

0.14

-0.14

0.06

0.15

0.22**

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

CROQ Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, SAQ Seattle Angina Questionnaire, PCS physical component summary, MCS mental component summary

Responsiveness

Table 6 shows the results of the responsiveness analysis for the CROQ based on the data of 28 patients who completed both the pre- and post-PTCA questionnaires. Large effect sizes were observed for the symptoms and the psychosocial functioning scales.
Table 6

Responsiveness of the CROQ-PTCA (K)

CROQ scale

Mean (SD)

Effect size

Pre Mean (median)

Post Mean (median)

Change Mean (median)

CROQ-PTCA (N = 28)

    

Symptoms

77.83 (82.1)

94.13 (100.0)

16.31 (17.9)**

1.30

Physical functioning

91.96 (100.0)

94.20 (100.0)

2.23 (0.0)

0.12

Cognitive functioning

95.00 (100.0)

97.62 (100.0)

2.62 (0.0)

0.41

Psychosocial functioning

94.13 (100.0)

85.84 (92.0)

-8.29 (-8.0)**

-0.50

**p < 0.01

CROQ Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first report on the translation and validation of the CROQ-PTCA in the Korean language. The results indicated that the Korean version of the CROQ-PTCA was psychometrically sound and appropriate for patients who undergo PCI procedures.

Regarding the translation procedure, the changes in the terms used are consistent with the cultural and procedural characteristics in Korea. In this study, about half of the patients received PCI via a radial artery. Evaluation by the expert group and a pilot test confirmed the content validity of the CROQ-PTCA (K).

According to the results of the analysis for the Cronbach’s alpha of each domain of the CROQ-PTCA (K), all domains in the CROQ core items and the CROQ satisfaction met the criteria value, which was a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7[21]. All items showed higher than 0.20 item-total correlation coefficients in the CROQ core items [21], except ‘frequency of use of nitroglycerin’ (0.16) in the CROQ symptom in the pre-PCI assessment. The low item-total correlation of ‘frequency of use of nitroglycerin’ might be associated with the fact that only 18 patients had used nitroglycerin (data not presented in tables) among 209 participants in the pre-test. However, the CROQ adverse effects showed a low Cronbach’s alpha of 0.47 and a mean of the item-total correlation coefficients of 0.27. Adverse effects described in the original CROQ-PTCA were those that occur when a femoral artery was used, and the Cronbach’s alpha for this original version was 0.87 [15]. In a Japanese study, the Cronbach’s alpha of the adverse effects was 0.83, but no information about puncture site was available [16]. However, many studies have reported that the radial approach is a safe method compared to the femoral approach due to a decreased risk of puncture site complications [2325]. In our study, the radial artery was used for half of the PCI procedures (Cronbach’s α = 0.33), and the mean score of adverse effects was very high (98.35 of 100), indicating almost no puncture site complications. Thus, the CROQ adverse effects may not be adequate for patients receiving PCI via the radial artery.

Seven factors were identified in the results of the EFA of the CROQ-PTCA (K) core items, with 79.4% and 75.7% of the contribution ratios. All items had a loading factor greater than 0.4 for the respective domain. The original version has four domains, but has not been the subject of EFA [15]. In the Japanese study, the four identified factors were almost the same as those found in the original version, but the contribution ratio was only 54.3% [16]. In our study, CROQ psychosocial functioning was separated into three factors of social activities, feelings about oneself, and feelings about one’s relationships with others. Physical functioning had two factors in the pre-test but only one factor on the post-test. Some items of the symptoms were identified as the same factor of physical functioning, such as palpitations on the pre-test and shortness of breathing on the post-test. The CROQ cognitive functioning contained one factor for both tests, while three items were included for psychosocial functioning in the pre-test. Although our findings were different from those of a previous study [16], the factors of the CROQ-PTCA (K) were reasonably identified.

In the results of the EFA of the CROQ-PTCA Post items, all items had a greater than 0.4 loading factor. The CROQ satisfaction was separated into two factors. Three items about satisfaction were identified as one factor, while three items about expectation were grouped into another factor. The CROQ adverse effects were separated into three factors of bruising, pain and numbness, and tenderness and other problems. In the Japanese study of 42 patients, however, one factor was identified in each domain of the CROQ-PTCA Post items [16]. As previously mentioned, there was no information about the puncture site of 42 patients in the Japanese study. In our study, participants reported almost no puncture site complications. Therefore, additional studies in patients undergoing PCI via the femoral artery or who experience more severe adverse effects are needed. In addition, further research using earlier assessment points than three months will be required to assess the adverse effects.

The concurrent validity of the CROQ-PTCA (K) was supported by the pattern of association among the CROQ, SF-12, and SAQ. The CROQ symptoms were significantly correlated with the PCS of SF-12 in the post-test and with the angina frequency scale of the SAQ. The CROQ physical functioning was significantly correlated with the PCS of the SF-12 and the physical limitation scale of the SAQ. The CROQ cognitive functioning and psychosocial functioning were significantly correlated with the MCS of the SF-12. The CROQ satisfaction was also significantly correlated with the treatment satisfaction scale of the SAQ. All domains of the CROQ-PTCA (K), except the cognitive functioning domain on the post-PCI test, were significantly correlated with the quality of life domain of the SAQ. As a result, the concurrent validity of the CROQ-PTCA (K) was confirmed.

In this study, the responsiveness of the CROQ-PTCA (K) was verified. The domain of symptoms was significantly improved after PCI. However, psychosocial functioning significantly declined after PCI, while the domains of physical and cognitive functioning did not significantly change. This finding can be explained by the characteristics of our participants. Most participants in this study were recruited from the outpatient department and were therefore not severely ill. We included only patients who had undergone elective PCI instead of an urgent procedure. Before the cardiac event, these patients likely considered themselves to be healthy, so their physical, cognitive, and psychosocial functioning domains on the pre-PCI test showed high scores. However, after the PCI, they might have realized the severity of their disease and more severely perceived the impact of the disease on their lives. Given its demonstrated good responsiveness, the CROQ-PTCA (K) may be appropriate to detect important differences in outcomes before and after PCI.

Our study has several limitations that should be mentioned. First, the investigation was restricted to patients receiving elective PCI in hospitals in Korea. Further validation research with patients undergoing not only elective, but also urgent PCI is needed. Secondly, the CROQ’s adverse effects showed low reliability. It is possible that the results would have differed if we had used earlier assessment points than three months to assess the associated adverse effects. Thirdly, the sample size used to evaluate the responsiveness of the CROQ was quite small. Further research will be needed to investigate the responsiveness of the CROQ for changes in a large sample.

Conclusions

The CROQ was originally developed to assess patients’ specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and also to evaluate treatment effectiveness from the patient’s perspective. The Korean version of the CROQ-PTCA demonstrated good psychometric properties and was responsive to change. Thus, the CROQ-PTCA (K) is appropriate and acceptable for detecting meaningful changes that take place before and after PCI.

Abbreviations

APQLQ: 

Angina Pectoris Quality of Life Questionnaire

CABG: 

coronary artery bypass graft surgery

CROQ: 

Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire

EFA: 

exploratory factor analysis

HRQOL: 

health-related quality of life

IHD: 

ischemic heart disease

MCS: 

mental component summary

NHD: 

Nottingham Health Profile

PCI: 

percutaneous coronary intervention

PCS: 

physical component summary

PTCA: 

percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

SAQ: 

Seattle Angina Questionnaire

SOB: 

shortness of breath

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Dong-A University research fund.

Funding

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

Supplemental data and materials are available upon request.

Authors’ contributions

MK participated in conception of research, interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, and critical revision. JS participated in conception of research and drafting the manuscript. JH participated in study design, collection and interpretation of data, and critical revision. KP participated in study design, collection and interpretation of data, statistical analyses, and critical revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board in Gyeongsang National University, Korea (Reference number: 2013-12-026-001). All participants provided written informed consent.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Nursing, Dong-A University
(2)
College of Nursing, Catholic University of Pusan
(3)
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital
(4)
Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine Jinju
(5)
Department of Preventive Medicine and Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine

References

  1. World Health Organization: The top 10 causes of death. 2014. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/. Accessed 28 Jan 2016.
  2. Statistics Korea: 2014 Cause of Death Statistics. 2015. http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=348539. Accessed 24 Jan 2016.
  3. Mendis S, Puska P, Norrving B. Global atlas on cardiovascular disease prevention and control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Sipahi I, Akay MH, Dagdelen S, Blitz A, Alhan C. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality and morbidity in multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the arterial grafting and stenting era. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:223–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Shah R, Yang Y, Bentley JP, Banahan 3rd BF. Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:1891–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Tokushige A, Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Ono K, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Kadota K, Ando K, Shizuta S, Tada T, et al. Incidence and outcome of surgical procedures after coronary artery bypass grafting compared with those after percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:482–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, Morice MC, Holmes DR, Stahle E, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW, Serruys PW, Colombo A. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2125–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fatima K, Yousuf-Ul-Islam M, Ansari M, Bawany FI, Khan MS, Khetpal A, Khetpal N, Lashari MN, Arshad MH, Amir RB, et al. Comparison of the postprocedural quality of life between coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract. 2016;doi:10.1155/2016/7842514.
  9. Lavoie L, Khoury H, Welner S, Briere JB. Burden and prevention of adverse cardiac events in patients with concomitant chronic heart failure and coronary artery disease: a literature review. Cardiovasc Ther. 2016;34:152–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Peric VM, Borzanovic MD, Stolic RV, Jovanovic AN, Sovtic SR. Severity of angina as a predictor of quality of life changes six months after coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:2115–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Spertus JA, Nerella R, Kettlekamp R, House J, Marso S, Borkon AM, Rumsfeld JS. Risk of restenosis and health status outcomes for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2005;111:768–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schroter S, Lamping DL. Responsiveness of the coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire compared with the SF-36 and Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1069–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho HY, Park IH, Jeong MH, Choi MJ, Hong YJ, Moon JY, Kim JH, Ahn YK, Kang JC. Assessment of the ouality of life in the patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Chonnam Med J. 2007;43:80–7.Google Scholar
  14. Jang JS, Buchanan DM, Gosch KL, Jones PG, Sharma PK, Shafiq A, Grodzinsky A, Fendler TJ, Graham G, Spertus JA. Association of smoking status with health-related outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002226.
  15. Schroter S, Lamping DL. Coronary revascularisation outcome questionnaire (CROQ): development and validation of a new, patient based measure of outcome in coronary bypass surgery and angioplasty. Heart. 2004;90:1460–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Seki S, Kato N, Ito N, Kinugawa K, Ono M, Motomura N, Yao A, Watanabe M, Imai Y, Takeda N, et al. Translation and validation study of the Japanese versions of the Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ-J). Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;10:22–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Shahali SH, Shaterzadeh YMJ, Goharpey SH, Rahim F. Reliability of the Persian version of Coronary Revascularization Qutcome Questionnaire (CROQ) in cardiac patients undergoing CABG and PTCA procedures. J Clin Diagn Res. 2008;2:919–24.Google Scholar
  18. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service: The utility of health care service. 2015. http://opendata.hira.or.kr/op/opc/olapMfrnIntrsDiagBhvInfo.do. Accessed 27 Dec 2016.
  19. Behling O, Law KS. Translating questionnaires and otehr research instruments: problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pulbications, Inc.; 2000.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Prodzinski J, McDonell M, Fihn SD. Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:333–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Revised edn. New York: Academic Press; 1977Google Scholar
  23. Karrowni W, Vyas A, Giacomino B, Schweizer M, Blevins A, Girotra S, Horwitz PA. Radial versus femoral access for primary percutaneous interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:814–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu P, Gao XL, Li BF, Ding XZ, Wang ZH, Dang YP, Liu YG, Li YF. Radial versus femoral artery access for percutaneous coronary angiography and intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in Chinese population. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:17151–66.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Mamas MA, Ratib K, Routledge H, Neyses L, Fraser DG, de Belder M, Ludman PF, Nolan J. Influence of arterial access site selection on outcomes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Are the results of randomized trials achievable in clinical practice? JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2013;6:698–706.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement