['Current standards hold that cost-effectiveness analyses should incorporate measures of both quantity and quality of life, and that quality of life in this context is best measured by a utility. We sought to measure utility scores for patients with heart failure and to assess their validity as measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL).', 'We studied 50 patients with heart failure. We measured utilities with the time trade-off technique, exercise capacity with a 6-minute walk test, and HRQL with the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, and a visual analogue score. Validity was assessed by establishing correlation between utilities and these other measures. Mean utility score was 0.77 +/- 0.28. There were significant (P < .05) curvilinear relationships between utility score and visual analogue score, the physical function summary scale of the SF-36, 6-minute walk distance, and the Living With Heart Failure score. Utility scores on retest at 1 week were unchanged in a subset of 12 patients. Utilities did not vary systematically with age, sex, or ethnicity.'] Are patient preferences for heart failure treatment : utilities valid measures of health-related quality of life in heart failure?