Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Serbian version of Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Treatment Satisfaction-Patient Satisfaction (FACIT-TS-PS) questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: Transcultural adaptation and validation of FACIT-TS-PS questionnaire to Serbian language. METHODS: Standard forward and backward translation from English to Serbian language was performed. Pilot testing of FACIT-TS-PS was conducted on 12 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of malignant tumor. The study included 154 patients with malignant disease. The Questionnaire of Patient Satisfaction was used as a validated tool to evaluate concurrent validity of FACIT-TS-PS questionnaire. Reproducibility was tested on 30 subjects who answered the questionnaire for the second time two weeks later. RESULTS: Three FACIT-TS-PS subscales (Physician Communication, Treatment Staff Communication and Nurse Communication) demonstrated satisfactory construct validity using Cronbach's alpha, the remaining two subscales (Technical Competence and Confidence & Trust) showed high ceiling effect. Treatment Staff Communication subscale showed large floor effect. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by correlation with the two dimensions of the Questionnaire of Patient Satisfaction. Satisfactory reproducibility was demonstrated on 30 patients who filled the questionnaire for the second time two weeks after initial interview. CONCLUSION: The Serbian version of FACIT-TS-PS with the omission of Treatment Staff Communication subscale could be used as a valid instrument to assess patient and treatment satisfaction in chronically ill patients in the Serbian population. Omission of Treatment Staff Communication subscale is necessary because it contains questions not relevant for patients in Serbian healthcare system.

Economic Justification Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement.

There is no definitive consensus about the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) (MI-AVR) compared to conventional AVR (C-AVR). The aim of this study was to compare the rate of postoperative complications and total hospital costs of MI-AVR versus C-AVR overall and by the type of aortic prosthesis (biological or mechanical). Our single-center retrospective study included 324 patients over 18 years old who underwent elective isolated primary AVR with standard stented AV prosthesis at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje" between January 2019 and December 2019. Reintervention, emergencies, combined surgical interventions, and patients with sutureless valves were excluded. In both MI-AVR and C-AVR, mechanical valve implantation contributed to overall reduction of hospital costs with equal efficacy. The cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that C-AVR is cheaper and yielded a better clinical outcome with mechanical valve implantation (67.17 vs. 69.5). In biological valve implantation, MI-AVR was superior. MI-AVR patients had statistically significantly higher LVEF and a lower Euro SCORE than C-AVR patients (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.002 and p = 0.002, respectively). There is a slight advantage to MI-AVR vs. C-AVR, since it costs EUR 9.44 more to address complications that may arise. Complications (mortality, early reoperation, cerebrovascular insult, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation, AV block, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, wound infection) were less frequent in the MI-AVR, making MI-AVR more economically justified than C-AVR (18% vs. 22.1%).