Abstract 139: Angina Frequency, Quality of Life and Functional Status in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Data from the Heart and Soul Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Angina is a common symptom among patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD), but its long-term effects on quality of life and functional limitation have not been quantified. We sought to evaluate the longitudinal association of angina frequency with quality of life and functional limitation in patients with IHD. Methods: We enrolled 1023 outpatients with stable IHD in a prospective cohort study between 2000 and 2002. Participants completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at baseline and annually for five years. The longitudinal associations of SAQ angina frequency with overall quality of life (fair or poor vs. excellent, very good, or good), SAQ quality of life score, SAQ physical limitation score, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (III or IV vs. I or II) were estimated using mixed effects regression models with adjustment for clinical risk factors. Results: At baseline, 633 participants (62%) reported no angina, 279 (27%) reported monthly angina, and 111 (11%) reported daily or weekly angina. At baseline, participants with daily or weekly angina were more likely than those without angina to report fair or poor overall quality of life (46% vs. 18%, P<.001) and NYHA class III or IV symptoms (58% vs. 13%, P<0.001). During five years of follow-up, participants with daily or weekly angina had worse mean SAQ Quality of Life scores (51.7 vs. 89.2, P<.001) and SAQ Physical Limitation scores (62.4 vs. 84.9, P<.001) than participants without angina. After adjusting for age, sex, race, smoking, hypertension, history of heart failure, physical inactivity, depressive symptoms, and medication use, daily or weekly angina remained associated with worse mean SAQ Quality of Life scores (54.7 vs. 88.7, P<.001) and Physical Limitation scores (66.8 vs. 85.0, P<.001). In adjusted analyses, participants with daily or weekly angina had higher odds of reporting fair or poor quality of life (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.18, 2.69, P<.001) and higher odds of reporting NYHA class III or IV symptoms (OR 6.17, 95%CI 4.34, 8.77, P<.001) during the follow-up period. Conclusions: Angina frequency was associated with longitudinal measures of quality of life and functional limitations in outpatients with IHD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".