About this item:

115 Views | 378 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding author. Tel: +44 292 074 4771; fax: +44 292 075 0239, Email: kathleen.withers@wales.nhs.uk

The authors thank Dr Mark Kelly (South East Wales Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Wales) for statistical support.

Conflict of interest: S.M. acts as an advisor to two companies which manufacture cardiac ablation equipment: Medtronic and Boston Scientific.


Research Funding:

Cedar is funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme.

Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by Cedar.


  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
  • Cardiovascular System & Cardiology
  • Patient reported outcome measures
  • PROMs
  • Cardiac ablation
  • Arrhythmia
  • Quality of life

Patient reported outcome measures for cardiac ablation procedures: a multicentre pilot to develop a new questionnaire


Journal Title:



Volume 16, Number 11


, Pages 1626-1633

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF


Aim To assess the feasibility of administering Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) in patients treated with ablation for cardiac arrhythmias, and to conduct the first stage of development and testing of a new PROM tool. Methods and results A new tool was developed by a multidisciplinary team and tested alongside an adaptation of the patient perception of arrhythmia questionnaire (PPAQ) and EQ-5D-5L in a multicentre retrospective audit involving 791 consecutive cardiac arrhythmia patients treated with catheter ablation at three UK centres over 13 months. Data were recorded in the National Cardiac Rhythm Management Database, part of the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. The response rate was 71.9% (n = 569). Patients reported significant improvements across all outcomes and impacts, with reductions in symptoms of 51.7% (heart racing), 33.9% (fatigue) 31.8% (heart flutters), 43.5% (dizziness), 38.6% (breathlessness), 44.2% (chest pressure), 33.1% (trouble concentrating), 15.9% (headache), 28.3% (neck pressure), and 23.4% (fainting) (P < 0.001). The mean number of social days affected reduced by 7.49 days/month (P < 0.001); mean work/school days affected/month reduced by 6.26 (P < 0.001); mean GP/hospital visits reduced by 1.36 days/month (P < 0.001). The procedure met patient expectations in 72% of responders. Conclusions The high response rate suggests that the use of PROMs in this patient group is feasible, with rates equalling those of the National PROMs Programme. The results showed that patients experienced significant improvements in their quality of life following ablation, while feedback allowed the tools to be improved. Further work is required to validate these tools; however, the findings suggest that PROMs could be useful in the audit of ablation techniques. © 2014 © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Copyright information:

© 2014 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Export to EndNote