Variability in patient-reported outcomes among different congenital heart defects: a comparative analysis of 7,498 patients from 32 countries

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may not always correlate with the complexity of congenital heart defects (CHDs), as significant variation has been observed between CHDs within complexity levels. Accurate comparisons across various types of CHDs necessitate large sample sizes. Purpose The objective of this study was to compare PROs across different CHDs in a large international sample. Methods ‘Assessment of Patterns of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Congenital Heart disease – International Study II’ (APPROACH-IS II) was an international cross-sectional investigation, in which 8,415 patients from 32 countries in 6 continents were enrolled (20 high; 7 upper-middle; 4 lower-middle; and 1 low income). For the comparison across different CHDs, conditions with at least 50 patients were included in the analysis. Hence, the sample consisted of 7,498 patients (median age=33y; 53.1% women). Patients completed questionnaires to measure perceived health status (RAND-12 Health Survey; EuroQOL-5D Visual Analog Scale); depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8); anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (Linear Analog Scale). Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were performed with center as random effect. Results Cyanotic heart defects were associated with the lowest scores for physical functioning, mental health, self-rated health, and quality of life (see Figure). Other CHDs found to be associated with poor PRO scores encompassed unrepaired secundum atrial septal defect, Ebstein anomaly, single ventricle, and truncus arteriosus. Conversely, the most favorable scores for all PROs, except for anxiety, were observed with isolated pulmonic stenosis. Other CHDs with favorable PRO scores comprised coarctation of the aorta, isolated small ventricular septal defect, congenital aortic valve disease, and repaired ventricular septal defect. Adjusted for sociodemographic and physiological factors, GLMMs revealed significant differences across defects, using the best score for each PRO as the reference (see Figure). Conclusion Substantial variation in PROs was observed among different types of CHDs. Interestingly, some complex heart defects demonstrated relatively good PRO scores, comparable to some simple defects. On the other hand, unrepaired simple defects or those with residual lesions, were associated with worse PROs.