Introduction
Degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) is typically characterised by progressive calcification of the aortic valve, resulting in increased strain on the left ventricle. Once symptoms develop, the condition has usually reached such a severity that prompt intervention is essential. Without treatment, survival rates range from 15% to 50% at 5 years.1 Treatment with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has generally been the procedure of choice, while transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been developed as an alternative for patients who are at high or prohibitive risk for surgery.2 In some cases, an individual may be too sick or frail to undergo any form of invasive procedure. Such patients are treated with medication due to the limited chance of improvement after any form of surgical or interventional treatment.
Understanding how an illness can impact a patient’s life is imperative to planning treatment strategies that will optimise the management of their symptoms and to determine the patient’s satisfaction with the treatment they receive.3 4 While there is a great deal of information about survival and morbidity outcomes after aortic valve replacement, there is a lack of comprehensive data regarding quality of life (QoL) changes before and after the intervention.5–7 This is particularly significant in the setting of severe AS, where patients often have a reduced life expectancy, which affects their day-to-day physical and emotional condition. Furthermore, the cost of the procedure requires an assessment of the real value of the therapy taking into account the patient’s and family perception of the benefit, that has an additional value.
It is important, therefore, to capture the physical and psychological disruptions caused by chronic diseases and their treatments. The level of interference varies by disease and by the different treatments received.8 Many different scales exist to assess QoL in patients with cardiovascular disease, including the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ),9 the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ),10 the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire11 and the MacNew heart disease health-related QoL questionnaire.12 There are also a number of generic health-related QoL questionnaires, including the widely used Short Form (SF)-12,13 the Euro-QoL five dimensions (EQ-5D)14 and the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS).8 The KCCQ is perhaps the most relevant scale for application to patients with AS, as there are many similarities in the symptoms of AS to those of heart failure (HF). In a number of analyses of patients undergoing valve replacement, Arnold et al demonstrated a level of validity of the KCCQ.15–17 However, the treatment of AS differs substantially to that of HF, which significantly affects changes in QoL after any intervention.
In order to attain a more accurate picture of QoL for patients with severe AS before and after treatment, the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ) was developed.18 This questionnaire takes into account AS-specific symptoms and how they affect a patient’s physical and mental well-being, as well as evaluating the patient’s assessment of their general health. As with any novel questionnaire, validation of TASQ is required. Here, we describe the methods that we will use to validate the TASQ in patients with severe AS being treated with SAVR, TAVI or medical management. To facilitate dissemination of the questionnaire to multiple countries, it will be validated in five different languages using the standardised methodology described.