The purpose was to assess whether combining patient reported scores (VVSymQ®) and physician reported scores (VCSS) stratifies disease severity in C2 patients.
Methods
Consecutive patients were pooled from the VANISH-1 and VANISH-2 cohorts. VCSS and VVSymQ® were calculated for each patient. The relationship between scoring systems was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation and frequency distribution analysis.
Results
Two-hundred and ten C2 limbs were included. Scoring systems demonstrated: VVSymQ®: mean = 8.72; VCSS: mean = 6.32; correlation (r = 0.22, p = 0.05). Frequency distribution analysis demonstrated 61.4% of patients had low VVSymQ® and low VCSS; 31.3% had elevated VVSymQ® and increased VCSS; 7.3% were inconsistent with C2 disease. Strict concordance analysis revealed 40.5% had VVSymQ® (< 9)/VCSS (0-6), 18.6% had VVSymQ® (≥ 9)/VCSS (7-9), and 2.9% had VVSymQ® (≥9)/VCSS (≥10).
Conclusions
For combined elevated VVSymQ® and VCSS, moderate/severe disease is corroborated, and intervention may be indicated. For combined lower scores, the disease severity is mild and conservative therapy is more appropriate.
MasudaE, et al. The 2020 appropriate use criteria for chronic lower extremity venous disease of the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2020; 8: 505–525.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.02.001.
2.
SchulMWKingTKabnickLS.Inequalities of health insurance guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic varicose veins. Phlebology2014; 29: 236–246.
3.
PatyJTurner-BowkerDMElashCA, et al. The VVSymQ(R) instrument: use of a new patient-reported outcome measure for assessment of varicose vein symptoms. Phlebology2016; 31: 481–488.
4.
PatyJElashCATurner-BowkerDM.Content validity for the VVSymQ((R)) instrument: a new patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of varicose veins symptoms. Patient2017; 10: 51–63.
5.
WrightDDPatyJTurner-BowkerDM, et al. Psychometric evaluation of a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) symptom diary for varicose veins: VVSymQ((R)) instrument. Patient2016; 9: 335–348.
6.
ArgyriouCPapasiderisCAntoniouGA, et al. The effectiveness of various interventions versus standard stripping in patients with varicose veins in terms of quality of life. Phlebology2018; 33: 439–450.
7.
ConwayRGAlmeidaJIKabnickL, et al. Clinical response to combination therapy in the treatment of varicose veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2020; 8: 216–223.
8.
BelrammanABootunRLaneTRA, et al. Endovenous management of varicose veins. Angiology2019; 70: 388–396.
9.
StückerMDebusESHoffmannJ, et al. Consensus statement on the symptom-based treatment of chronic venous diseases. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges2016; 14: 575–583.
10.
ZhangMQiuTBuX, et al. A national survey on management of varicose veins in China. JJ Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2018; 6: 338–346. e331
11.
WronaMJöckelK-HPannierF, et al. Association of venous disorders with leg symptoms: results from the Bonn vein study 1. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2015; 50: 360–367.
12.
PannierFRabeE.Progression in venous pathology. Phlebology2015; 30: 95–97.
13.
RabeEPannierFKoA, et al. Incidence of varicose veins, chronic venous insufficiency, and progression of the disease in the Bonn vein study II. J Vasc Surg2010; 51: 791.
14.
MooreHMLaneTRThaparA, et al. The European burden of primary varicose veins. Phlebology2013; 28(Suppl 1): 141–147.
15.
CampbellBChinaiNHolleringP, et al. Factors influencing the choice of treatment modality for individual patients with varicose veins. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2017; 99: 624–630.
16.
BarnesGDGafoorSWakefieldT, et al. National trends in venous disease. J Vasc Surg2010; 51: 1467–1473.
17.
OnidaSDaviesAH.Predicted burden of venous disease. Phlebology2016; 31: 74–79.
18.
KimTIZhangYGuzmanRJ, et al. Trends of hospital-based surgery for varicose veins in the elderly. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2021; 9: 146–153.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.04.016.
19.
van der VeldenSKPichotOvan den BosRR, et al. Management strategies for patients with varicose veins (C2-C6): results of a worldwide survey. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2015; 49: 213–220.
20.
MarsdenGPerryMKelleyK, et al. Diagnosis and management of varicose veins in the legs: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ2013; 347: f4279.
21.
CatarinellaFSNiemanFHWittensCH.An overview of the most commonly used venous quality of life and clinical outcome measurements. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2015; 3: 333–340.
22.
ShepherdACGohelMSLimCS, et al. A study to compare disease-specific quality of life with clinical anatomical and hemodynamic assessments in patients with varicose veins. J Vasc Surg2011; 53: 374–382.
23.
StaniszewskaATambyrajaAAfolabiE, et al. The Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire, patient factors and referral for treatment. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2013; 46: 715–718.
24.
BlandJMDumvilleJCAshbyRL, et al. Validation of the VEINES-QOL quality of life instrument in venous leg ulcers: repeatability and validity study embedded in a randomised clinical trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord2015; 15: 85.
25.
EklofB, et al. Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. J Vasc Surg2004; 40: 1248–1252.
26.
LurieFPassmanMMeisnerM, et al. The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2020; 8: 342–352.
27.
PassmanMAMcLaffertyRBLentzMF, et al. Validation of venous clinical severity score (VCSS) with other venous severity assessment tools from the american venous forum, national venous screening program. J Vasc Surg2011; 54: 2s–9s.
28.
MallickRLalBKDaughertyC.Relationship between patient-reported symptoms, limitations in daily activities, and psychological impact in varicose veins. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2017; 5: 224–237.
