{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03757616790792146, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017603249830737983, 'mean_word_length': 4.921843687374749, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Evaluating the quality of life of 42 heart transplant patients and candidates: a cross-sectional study].

OBJECTIVE
Although evaluation of heart transplant candidates and recipients is usually based on objective clinical variables, self-assessment has been proved to be an important component of treatment evaluation. Quality of life is a multidimensional concept, a mix of objective and subjective measures, that could reflect the adjustment to the illness and its treatment. Few studies have reported on quality of life in heart transplantation candidates. This exploratory study, conducted in Bordeaux (France), was designed to assess both objectively and subjectively the quality of life in heart transplant candidates and recipients and to determine the relationships between subjective and objective variables.


METHOD
The assessment was cross-sectional; 21 candidates evaluated at an average of 10 (Sd 21.4) months into the waiting period, were matched with 21 recipients at 29.5 months post operative. Subjective evaluation of the quality of life was self-assessed by the Tableau d'évaluation assistée de la qualité de la vie (TEAQV) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). A semi structured psychiatric interview, and the NYHA (New York Heart Association) cardiac insufficiency score provided objective measurements.


RESULTS
The NHP and TEAQV mean scores were not not significantly different between the two groups: candidates (C) and recipients (R) reported similar subjective data regarding positive quality of life experience. The objective data indicated significant disadvantages for the candidate group: the cardiac insufficiency score was worse in the candidates [(NYHA mean score: (C) = 2.7 Sd 0.56 vs (R) = 0.7 Sd 0.8, t de Student p < 0.01)] and the DSM III-R axis 1 diagnoses were more frequent in the candidates [(C) = 16/21 vs (R) = 9/21 Chi2 p < 0.05)]. There was a prevalence of adjustment disorders in the candidates. Significant correlations were found between NYHA and NHP mean scores (r = 0.6, p < 0.01) and NYHA and physical and psychological dimensions of the TEAQV (r = -0.65 and r = -0.55, p < 0.01) in the recipient group. In the candidate group, no correlation was found between these scores.


CONCLUSION
In the recipient group, objective and subjective assessment showed greater concordance than in the candidate group. Despite more objective physical and moderate yet frequent psychiatric complications, the candidate group reported as positively as did the recipients upon the quality of their life experience. This could be the result of psychological adaptation to the stressful situation. These data were in accordance to several earlier reports. However, the literature has remained controversial upon the evaluation of the quality of life of the candidates. The results of this study, limited by some methodological bias (the small number of patients assessed), need to be confirmed in a prospective study.