Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Predictors of health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery: a systematic review

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 20, Article number: 79 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important in determining surgical success, particularly from the patients’ perspective.

Aims

To identify predictors for HRQoL outcome after cardiac surgery in order to identify potentially modifiable factors where interventions to improve patient outcomes could be targeted.

Methods

Electronic databases (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase) were searched between January 2001 and December 2020 for studies determining predictors of HRQoL (using a recognised and validated tool) in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken and data was summarised using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis, as appropriate.

Results

Overall, 3924 papers were screened with 41 papers included in the review. Considerable methodological heterogeneity between studies was observed. Most were single-centre (75.6%) prospective observational studies (73.2%) conducted in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (n = 51.2%) using a version of the SF-36 (n = 63.4%). Overall, 103 independent predictors (62 pre-operative, five intra-operative and 36 post-operative) were identified, where 34 (33.0%) were reported in more than one study. Potential pre-operative modifiable predictors include alcohol use, BMI/weight, depression, pre-operative quality of life and smoking while in the post-operative period pain and strategies to reduce post-operative complications and intensive care and hospital length of stay are potential therapeutic targets.

Conclusion

Despite a lack of consistency across studies, several potentially modifiable predictors were identified that could be targeted in interventions to improve patient or treatment outcomes. This may contribute to delivering more person-centred care involving shared decision-making to improve patient HRQoL after cardiac surgery.

Introduction

High quality surgical care should include mortality, morbidity and patient-centred outcome measurement [1]. However, patient reported outcomes (PRO) are rarely recorded. Even in research contexts, PROs have only been reported in 29% of cardiac surgery trials [2], despite the fact that those experiencing post-operative complications have worse quality of life [3], which can last three years after surgery [4].

Despite clinicians previously considering health-related quality of life (HRQoL) less important that clinical measures [5], globally health ministers have stated the need to invest in measures that matter most to people [6]. HRQoL measurement allows a holistic, patient-centred perspective of recovery and it is becoming increasingly recognised that HRQoL is important in determining surgical success both from the patients [7] and health-care commissioners [8] perspective.

Factors that predict cardiac surgery mortality do not predict post-operative HRQoL outcome [9]. Thus, an understanding of the factors that do predict HRQoL would be useful to inform patients of the implications of surgery and interventions to improve potentially modifiable predictors could be implemented. Certainly in the UK, HRQoL, and factors associated with it, was identified as the top ten research priority for adult cardiac surgery research [10]. We therefore undertook a literature review to ascertain the predictors of HRQoL after cardiac surgery, to identify potentially modifiable predictors that could be targeted for intervention.

Methods

Protocol and registration

This review was registered on PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review (February 2019, reference CRD42019120080) and conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [11].

Eligibility criteria

All studies that undertook multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of HRQoL after cardiac surgery were eligible for inclusion. The detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

Information sources, search strategy and study selection

A search of MEDLINE, Cumulated Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) was undertaken for relevant papers in English between January 2001 and December 2020. Search terms included cardiac surgery OR Cardiac Surgical Procedures AND quality of life OR outcome assessment and were adapted for each database (Additional file 1). Two authors screened the title and abstracts of all citations for suitability against the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). The reference lists of any identified systematic reviews were also screened for eligible papers.

Data collection and syntheses (data items and data collection process)

Data were extracted by two authors into a standardised proforma with disagreements resolved through discussion until consensus was achieved. Data extraction included author, country, year, study design, type of surgery, sample size, HRQoL tool used including the time-points where HRQoL was measured, and the independent predictors of HRQoL.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

All included papers were quality reviewed using an adapted Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) template for cohort studies (https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Clinical-Prediction-Rule-Checklist_2018.pdf). Initial papers were reviewed independently by two authors to ensure consistency and subsequent papers were reviewed by two of four authors with additional random checks undertaken at the end to be assured of continued assurance. A risk of bias graph was generated. Studies were not excluded on the basis of the quality assessment.

Analysis

Following data extraction, results were summarised using descriptive statistics, tables and narrative synthesis, as appropriate. Interpretation of the analysis was discussed and agreed by all members of the authorship team. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of studies.

Results

Study selection

A total of 3924 papers were identified for possible inclusion (Fig. 1) with 100 papers undergoing independent full-text assessment. This resulted in 41 papers being included for data synthesis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart

Full size image

Study characteristics

Thirty-two studies were conducted in Europe (two of which were in the UK), four each in Australia the USA, and one in Canada (Table 2). The vast majority were single centre (n = 31) with seven studies conducted in two centres and three studies conducted in multiple centres. Most were prospective observational studies (n = 30) on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (n = 21), CABG and/or valve surgery (n = 10), valve only (n = 1) or other combinations of cardiac surgery (n = 9), with sample sizes in the HRQoL analysis ranging from 34 to 8676. The most commonly used tools were versions of the SF-36 (n = 26) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) (n = 8).

Table 2 Study characteristics (n = 41)
Full size table

In most studies HRQoL was measured pre-operatively (n = 35) in addition to at least one post-operative assessment (Table 2), usually within six months of surgery (n = 20) with twenty-four studies assessing outcome at one year or beyond (some studies assessed at more than one time-point). HRQoL was not the primary outcome in all studies.

Risk of bias

Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the variable risk of bias across studies and also in considering studies individually.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias (summary, risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of bias for individual studies

Full size image

Independent predictors of HRQoL

The independent predictors associated with HRQoL by operative and follow-up time-frame are detailed in Table 3 (and by study are included in are detailed in Additional file 1: Table S1). Overall, variables that were examined were predominantly focused on the clinical condition and experience of patients across the pre-, intra- and post-operative course. Of note, few demographic, social or psychological factors were incorporated into the analysis. Despite 26 studies (63.4%) using a version of the SF-36, how it was implemented and categorised to determine predictors varied across studies. For example, four studies explored predictors in relation to the overall score [4, 12,13,14], 13 explored the physical component (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) separately [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], four studies explored one domain [28,29,30,31] two studies explored predictors in all SF-36 domains [32, 33] while only Falcoz and colleagues explored both PCS and MCS and all domains [34]. Furthermore, Kube and colleagues used an abbreviated form of the SF-36, the SF-12, to measure physical and psychological quality of life [35].

Table 3 Independent variables by operative and follow-up time period
Full size table

Due to the variation in analysis and reporting across the studies, the independent predictors identified were grouped by operative and follow-up time-frame (Table 3). In total, 103 independent predictors (62 pre-operative, 5 intra-operative and 36 post-operative) were identified. Of those 103 variables 34 (33.0%) were identified as significant in more than one study and almost all of those (n = 33 (97.1%)) were also found to be non-significant in other studies (non-significant variable data detailed in Additional file 2: Table S2). Variables found to be predictive at all three time-points were age, angina, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, gender, hypertension and NYHA class and peripheral vascular disease.

Potentially modifiable predictors

Of the 62 pre-operative variables identified as independent predictors for HRQoL outcome those that are potentially modifiable pre-surgery include alcohol use, body mass index (BMI)/weight, depression, pre-operative quality of life and smoking (Table 3).

Similarly, in the post-operative period independent predictors with the potential to be modified to improve HRQoL outcome were pain, traumatic memories and restlessness in the intensive care unit (ICU). Furthermore, general strategies to reduce post-operative complications (including infection, myocardial infarction, arrythmias and readmission) and shorten ICU and hospital length of stay are also identified as potential targets to improve post-surgical HRQoL (Table 3).

Discussion

The inclusion, measurement and use of HRQoL and PRO in routine cardiac surgery practice is lacking. Healthcare organisations need to work with patients to deliver more person-centred care, sharing decision-making, to meaningfully improve care outcomes [36]. The ‘holy grail’ of prognostic factor research is to improve patient outcomes by providing a personalised approach to healthcare and risk prediction and how such factors could be used to improve patient or treatment outcomes [37]. Thus, we sought to identify known predictors for HRQoL outcome after cardiac surgery, specifically to focus on modifiable factors where interventions to improve patient or treatment outcomes could be targeted. We identified 41 studies, which were predominantly European-based single-centre prospective observational studies conducted in CABG patients. Certainly, recognition of the non-modifiable predictors found to be particularly impactful both on short and longer-term HRQoL (age, angina, COPD, diabetes, gender, hypertension and NYHA class and peripheral vascular disease) may assist in identifying high risk patients and the identification of interventions and associated resources that might then be directed to assisting these patients to recover. In terms of potential modifiable predictors, pre-operative factors include alcohol use, smoking, BMI/weight depression, and pre-operative quality of life, while ongoing pain management, prevention of post-operative complications and general strategies to reduce ICU and hospital length of stay could also be beneficial.

Individually focused lifestyle and therapeutic interventions have shown effectiveness in weight and BMI reduction [38], decreasing alcohol consumption [39], psychological preparation (including depression and anxiety) [40] and smoking cessation [41]. Given that BMI [42], alcohol use [43], depression and anxiety [44] and smoking [45] have also been identified to be associated with many in-hospital post-operative complications, strategies to encourage their reduction are likely to have beneficial impacts on improving overall morbidity and general recovery. As yet, interventions specifically targeting pre-operative HRQoL do not exist. While most tools combine physical, mental and social wellbeing traditionally greater emphasis clinically has placed on physical health. Nonetheless, the importance of psychological readiness and inclusion of social support and anxiety reduction in prehabilitation programmes is now recognised as part of cardiac surgery enhanced recovery [46]. Furthermore, we found that severe pain during the ICU stay was an independent predictor of HRQoL at six months [47], while high pain scores at 15 months were predictive of HRQoL eight years after surgery in elderly patients [48]. Since up to 10% of cardiac surgery patients develop severe chronic post-surgical pain [49], with predictors of chronic pain including early severe pain [50] personalised effective pain management is vital. Current recommendations suggest the use of multimodal opioid-sparing pain management alongside the use of a pain assessment tool to ensure the lowest opioid dose [46].

Certainly, future work requires more methodologically robust studies, including large multi-site studies with appropriate control of confounding factors. However, generally a greater emphasis on HRQoL as an outcome measure after cardiac surgery, both clinically and in research, is needed. Although HRQoL has been previously undervalued by clinicians [5], the landscape is changing with the importance of HRQoL now recognised in cardiac surgery clinical guidelines [51], the enhanced recovery recommendations [46], the cardiac surgery core outcome dataset [52] and that PROs are included in the Swedish national registers [53] and emerging in the USA STS National Database [54]. Similarly, HRQoL is reported as a top research priority in cardiac surgery, both in the UK [10] and in the USA [55]. Therefore, our review is timely, in that it collates the available evidence on predictors of HRQoL, highlights potential modifiable factors on which interventions could be based in improve patient outcome and emphasises where greater research quality in prognosis factor research should reside in this area.

Strengths and limitations

Despite the methodological robustness of this review, there are three main limitations. Firstly, the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies restricts the ability to make strong conclusions or undertake a meta-analysis. Our review reflects that despite the considerable growth in prognosis research, the quality is often sub-standard [56]. Secondly, although only English language publications were included, studies from around the World have been included, providing a relatively wide base of evidence. Finally, included studies were limited to those published from 2001. A balance was struck between including all evidence and ensuring the results of this review were clinically appropriate outcome predictors for the current time. A period of 20-years was deemed sufficient to address the balance needed.

In conclusion, despite a lack of consistency across studies, several potentially modifiable predictors on which interventions to improve patient HRQoL outcomes could be targeted were identified. While this review has robustly collated the current best prognosis factor evidence relating to predictors of HRQoL after cardiac surgery, there is still a need for large multi-site studies, with appropriate control of confounding factors, to examine the role of these factors in affecting HRQoL outcome. Now that considerably more emphasis is placed on the importance of HRQoL and PROs after cardiac surgery, the hope is that this will contribute to delivering more person-centred care involving shared decision-making to improve patient short- and longer-term recovery.

Implications for practice

  • Cardiac surgery and enhanced recovery guidelines highlight the importance of HRQoL

  • Pre-operative lifestyle and therapeutic interventions relating to weight, alcohol use, psychological preparation and smoking cessation may improve HRQoL

  • Reducing chronic post-operative pain, in-hospital complications and length of hospital stay could also improve HRQoL.

  • More person-centred care, including HRQoL and shared decision-making, is needed to improve patient short- and longer-term recovery.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

CABG:

Coronary artery bypass graft

CASP:

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

ICU:

Intensive care unit

MCS:

Mental component score

NYHA:

New York Heart Association

PCS:

Physical component score

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

PRO:

Patient reported outcomes

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

SF-36:

Short-Form 36

References

  1. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJO. Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(4):626–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldfarb M, Drudi L, Almohammadi M, Langlois Y, Noiseux N, Perrault L, et al. Outcome reporting in cardiac surgery trials: Systematic review and critical appraisal. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(8):1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Martin C, Holmes S, Martin L, Hunt S, Ad N. Abstract P331: the impact of in-hospital postoperative complications on health related quality of life in cardiac surgery patients. In: Circulation: cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.4.suppl_1.ap331.

  4. Myles PS, Viira D, Hunt JO. Quality of life at three years after cardiac surgery: relationship with preoperative status and quality of recovery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006;34(2):176–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Calvert M, Kyte D, Price G, Valderas JM, Hjollund NH. Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ. 2019;364(January):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ministers OH. Ministerial statement: the next generation of health reforms ministerial statement. The next generation of health reforms: ministerial statement. 2017. www.oecd.org/health/ministerial/ministerial-statement-2017.pdf.

  7. Colak Z, Segotic I, Uzun S, Mazar M, Ivancan V, Majeric-Kogler V. Health related quality of life following cardiac surgery - correlation with EuroSCORE. Eur J Cardio Thoracic Surg. 2008;33(1):72–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Devlin NJ, Buxton M, Vallance-Owen A, Emberton M, Peters K, Naden R, et al. Getting the most out of PROMs: health outcomes and NHS decision-making. 2010 [cited 2018 Apr 13]. www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications.

  9. Vainiola T, Pettilä V, Roine RP, Räsänen P, Rissanen AM, Sintonen H. Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(12):2090–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lai FY, Abbasciano RG, Tabberer B, Kumar T, Murphy GJ. Identifying research priorities in cardiac surgery: a report from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in adult heart surgery. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Fletcher H, Solly R, Woodward D, Kelly S. Relation between quality of recovery in hospital and quality of life at 3 months after cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2001;95(4):862–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Norkienė I, Urbanaviciute I, Kezyte G, Vicka V, Jovaisa T. Impact of pre-operative health-related quality of life on outcomes after heart surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2018;88(4):332–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurfirst V, Mokráček A, Krupauerová M, Canádyová J, Bulava A, Pešl L, et al. Health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery–the effects of age, preoperative conditions and postoperative complications. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;9:46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Baldassarre FG, Arthur HM, DiCenso A, Guyatt G. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on older women’s health-related quality of life. Hear Lung J Acute Crit Care. 2002;31(6):421–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schelling G, Richter M, Roozendaal B, Rothenhauser H, Krauseneck T, Stoll C, et al. Exposure to high stress in the intensive care unit may have negative effects on health-related quality-of-life outcomes after cardiac surgery. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(7):1971–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baberg HT, Dirlich M, Laczkovics A, Grewe P, Bojara W, De Zeeuw J, et al. Determinants of health-related quality of life after aortic valve replacement in six-month survivors of intervention. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13(6):914–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rumsfeld JS, Ho PM, Magid DJ, McCarthy M, Shroyer ALW, Mawhinney S, et al. Predictors of health-related quality of life after coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(5):1508–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Ruzzeh S, Athanasiou T, Mangoush O, Wray J, Modine T, George S, et al. Predictors of poor mid-term health related quality of life after primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Heart. 2005;91(12):1557–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Le Grande MR, Elliott PC, Murphy BM, Worcester MUC, Higgins RO, Ernest CS, et al. Health related quality of life trajectories and predictors following coronary artery bypass surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Grady KL, Lee R, Subačius H, Malaisrie SC, McGee EC, Kruse J, et al. Improvements in health-related quality of life before and after isolated cardiac operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(3):777–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Patron E, Messerotti Benvenuti S, Palomba D. Preoperative biomedical risk and depressive symptoms are differently associated with reduced health-related quality of life in patients 1 year after cardiac surgery. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2016;40:47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grand N, Bouchet JB, Zufferey P, Beraud AM, Awad S, Sandri F, et al. Quality of life after cardiac operations based on the minimal clinically important difference concept. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(2):548–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Coelho PNMP, Miranda LMRPC, Barros PMP, Fragata JIG. Quality of life after elective cardiac surgery in elderly patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;28(2):199–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Blokzijl F, Houterman S, Van Straten BHM, Daeter E, Brandon Bravo Bruinsma GJ, Dieperink W, et al. Quality of life after coronary bypass: a multicentre study of routinely collected health data in the Netherlands. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg. 2019;56(3):526–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Joskowiak D, Meusel D, Kamla C, Hagl C, Juchem G. Impact of preoperative functional status on quality of life after cardiac surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019.

  27. Perrotti A, Ecamot F, Monaco F, Dorigo E, Monteleone P, Besch G, et al. Quality of life 10 years after cardiac surgery in adults: a long-term follow-up study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jarvinen O, Julkunen J, Saarinen T, Laurikka J, Huhtala H, Tarkka MR. Perioperative myocardial infarction has negative impact on health-related quality of life following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2004;26(3):621–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rijnhart-De Jong H, Haenen J, Bol Raap G, Jekel L, Vossenberg T, Bondarenko O, et al. Determinants of non-recovery in physical health-related quality of life one year after cardiac surgery: a prospective single Centre observational study. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Juergens MC, Seekatz B, Moosdorf RG, Petrie KJ, Rief W. Illness beliefs before cardiac surgery predict disability, quality of life, and depression 3 months later. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(6):553–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Deaton C, Thourani V. Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Predictors of Outcomes. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;8(1):48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2008.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. El Baz N, Middel B, Van Dijk JP, Wesselman DCM, Boonstra PW, Reijneveld SA. EuroSCORE predicts poor health-related physical functioning six month postcoronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2008;49(5):663–72.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Humphreys JM, Denson LA, Baker RA, Tully PJ. The importance of depression and alcohol use in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients: risk factors for delirium and poorer quality of life. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2016;13(1):51–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Falcoz PE, Chocron S, Stoica L, Kaili D, Puyraveau M, Mercier M, et al. Open heart surgery: one-year self-assessment of quality of life and functional outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76(5):1598–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kube T, Meyer J, Grieshaber P, Moosdorf R, Böning A, Rief W. Patients’ pre- and postoperative expectations as predictors of clinical outcomes six months after cardiac surgery. Psychol Heal Med. 2020;25(7):781–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2019.1659986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alderwick H, Dixon J. The NHS long term plan. BMJ. 2019;364:1–136.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Riley RD, van der Windt DA, Croft P, Moons KGM, editors. Prognosis research in healthcare: concepts, methods and impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Johnson M, Desiree Backman M, Neal Kohatsu R, Orion Stewart M, Rachel Abbott M, Zhiwei Yu B, et al. Interventions for reducing body mass index and other weight-related indicators: a review of systematic reviews 2016. https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/iphi/Programs/OP/resources/InterventionsforReducingBMIandOtherWeight-relatedIndicatorsReviewofSystematicReviews_12-15-16.pdf.

  39. Budworth L, Prestwich A, Lawton R, Kotzé A, Kellar I. Preoperative interventions for alcohol and other recreational substance use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2019;10:34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Salzmann S, Salzmann-Djufri M, Wilhelm M, Euteneuer F. Psychological preparation for cardiac surgery. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22(12):172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-01424-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5).

  42. Gao M, Sun J, Young N, Boyd D, Atkins Z, Li Z, et al. Impact of body mass index on outcomes in cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30(5):1308–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Eliasen M, Grønkjær M, Skov-Ettrup LS, Mikkelsen SS, Becker U, Tolstrup JS, et al. Preoperative alcohol consumption and postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2013;258(6):930–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pignay-Demaria V, Lespérance F, Demaria RG, Frasure-Smith N, Perrault LP. Depression and anxiety and outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(1):314–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sepehripour AH, Lo TT, McCormack DJ, Shipolini AR. Is there benefit in smoking cessation prior to cardiac surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15(4):726–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Engelman DT, Ben Ali W, Williams JB, Perrault LP, Reddy VS, Arora RC, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in cardiac surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations. JAMA Surg. 2019;12:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vainiola T, Roine RP, Suojaranta-Ylinen R, Vento A, Sintonen H. Can factors related to mortality be used to predict the follow-up health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cardiac surgery patients? Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2013;29(6):337–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jokinen JJ, Hippelainen MJ, Hanninen T, Turpeinen AK, Hartikainen JEK. Prospective assessment of quality of life of octogenarians after cardiac surgery: factors predicting long-term outcome. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2008;7(5):813–8. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2008.178095.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gjeilo KH, Stenseth R, Klepstad P. Risk factors and early pharmacological interventions to prevent chronic postsurgical pain following cardiac surgery. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2014;14(5):335–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-014-0083-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bjørnnes AK, Parry M, Lie I, Fagerland MW, Watt-Watson J, Rustøen T, et al. Pain experiences of men and women after cardiac surgery. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(19–20):3058–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sousa-Uva M, Neumann FJ, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2019;55(1):4–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Benstoem C, Moza A, Meybohm P, Stoppe C, Autschbach R, Devane D, et al. A core outcome set for adult cardiac surgery trials: a consensus study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Nilsson E, Orwelius L, Kristenson M. Patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish National Quality Registers. J Intern Med. 2016;279(2):141–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. D’Agostino RS, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, Fernandez FG, Paone G, Wormuth DW, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery database: 2019 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.10.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Khazanie P, Krumholz HM, Kiefe CI, Kressin NR, Wells B, Wang TY, et al. Priorities for cardiovascular outcomes research: a report of the national heart, lung, and blood institute’s centers for cardiovascular outcomes research working group. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(7):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Riley R, Moons KG, Hayden J, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Prognostic factor research. In: Riley R, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KG, editors. Prognosis research in healthcare. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 107–38.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Herlitz J, Brandrup-Wognsen G, Caidahl K, Haglid M, Karlson BW, Hartford M, et al. Improvement and factors associated with improvement in quality of life during 10 years after coronary artery bypass drafting. Coron Artery Dis. 2003;14(7):509–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schelling G, Richter M, Roozendaal B, Rothenhausler HB, Krauseneck T, Stoll C, et al. Exposure to high stress in the intensive care unit may have negative effects on health-related quality-of-life outcomes after cardiac surgery. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:1971–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Herlitz J, Brandrup-Wognsen G, Caidahl K, Hartford M, Haglid M, Karlson BW, et al. Determinants for an impaired quality of life 10 years after coronary artery bypass surgery. Int J Cardiol. 2005;98(3):447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Peric V, Borzanovic M, Jovanovic A, Stolic R, Sovtic S, Trajkovic G. The relationship between EuroSCORE preoperative risk prediction and quality of life changes after coronary artery by-pass surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2005;4(6):622–6. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2005.109546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Noyez L, Markou A, van Breugel F. Quality of life one year after myocardial revascularization. Is preoperative quality of life important? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2006;5(2):115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Panagopoulou E, Montgomery A, Benos A. Quality of life after coronary artery bypass grafting: evaluating the influence of preoperative physical and psychosocial functioning. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60(6):639–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Dunning J, Waller JRL, Smith B, Pitts S, Kendall SWH, Khan K. Coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with excellent long-term survival and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(6):1988–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Peric V, Borzanovic M, Stolic R, Jovanovic A, Sovtic S, Dimkovic S, et al. Predictors of worsening of patients’ quality of life six months after coronary artery bypass surgery. J Card Surg. 2008;23(6):648–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8191.2008.00667.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Herlitz J, Brandrup-Wognsen G, Evander MH, Libungan B, Sjöland H, Caidahl K, et al. Quality of life 15 years after coronary artery bypass grafting. Coron Artery Dis. 2009;20(6):363–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Maisano F, Viganò G, Calabrese C, Taramasso M, Denti P, Blasio A, et al. Quality of life of elderly patients following valve surgery for chronic organic mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg. 2009;36(2):261–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rantanen A, Kaunonen M, Tarkka M, Sintonen H, Koivisto AM, Åstedt-Kurki P, et al. Patients’ and significant others’ health-related quality of life one month after coronary artery bypass grafting predicts later health-related quality of life. Hear Lung J Acute Crit Care. 2009;38(4):318–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Peric V, Borzanovic M, Stolic R, Jovanovic A, Sovtic S, Djikic D, et al. Quality of life in patients related to gender differences before and after coronary artery bypass surgery☆. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10(2):232–8.

  69. Bjørnnes AK, Parry M, Falk R, Watt-Watson J, Lie I, Leegaard M. Impact of marital status and comorbid disorders on health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(9):2421–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Bishawi M, Hattler B, Almassi GH, Spertus JA, Quin JA, Collins JF, et al. Preoperative factors associated with worsening in health-related quality of life following coronary artery bypass grafting in the Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial. Am Heart J. 2018;198:33–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2017.12.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schaal NK, Assmann A, Rosendahl J, Mayer-Berger W, Icks A, Ullrich S, et al. Health-related quality of life after heart surgery—identification of high-risk patients: a cohort study. Int J Surg. 2020;76(February):171–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by Barts Charity (Grant Reference Number: MRD0181) to Leanne Aitken for research associate support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7DN, UK

    Julie Sanders & Nicholas Woolfe-Loftus

  2. William Harvey Research Institute, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

    Julie Sanders

  3. School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK

    Tracey Bowden, Mandeep Sekhon & Leanne M. Aitken

  4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    Leanne M. Aitken

Authors
  1. Julie Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tracey Bowden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas Woolfe-Loftus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mandeep Sekhon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leanne M. Aitken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JS: Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, validation, visualisation, writing-original draft; TB: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, validation, writing-review and editing; NW: data curation, investigation, writing-review and editing; MS: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, writing-review and editing; LA: Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, validation, writing-review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Sanders.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: 

Search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanders, J., Bowden, T., Woolfe-Loftus, N. et al. Predictors of health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20, 79 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01980-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01980-4

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us