Identifying venous clinical severity score thresholds for Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology classifications of venous edema and higher

Abstract

Objective

Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) is a widely used standard for assessing and grading the severity of chronic venous disease (CVD). Prior research highlighted its high validity in detecting and quantifying venous disease. However, there is little, if any, known about the precise thresholds at which VCSS discriminates important stages of deep venous disease. This study sought to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy, thresholds, and correlation at which VCSS detects salient CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology) classes in deep venous disease progression.

Methods

A registry of 840 patients who presented with chronic proximal venous outflow obstruction (PVOO) secondary to non-thrombotic iliac vein lesions from August 2011 to June 2021 was retrospectively analyzed. VCSS and CEAP classifications were used to evaluate preoperative symptoms. VCSS was compared to CEAP classes to determine the precise VCSS composite values at which the instrument was able to detect CEAP C3 and higher, C4 and higher, and C5 and higher. Receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate VCSS for its ability to discriminate disease at these stages of CEAP classification. Spearman’s rank coefficient was used to determine the correlation between CEAP VCSS composite as well as individual VCSS components (pain, varicose vein, edema, pigmentation, inflammation, induration, ulcer number, ulcer size, ulcer duration, compression).

Results

VCSS composite was able to detect venous edema (C3) and higher at a sensitivity of 68.9% and a specificity of 54.8% at an optimized threshold of 8.5 (AUC = 0.648; 95% C.I. = 0.575–0.721). To detect changes in skin and subcutaneous tissue from CVD (C4) and higher, an optimal threshold of 11.5 was found with a sensitivity of 51.7% and specificity of 76.5% (AUC = 0.694; 95% C.I. = 0.656–0.731). Healed venous ulcer (C4) and higher was detectable at an optimized threshold of 13.5 at a sensitivity of 67.7% and a specificity of 88.9% (AUC = 0.819; 95% C.I. = 0.766–0.873). The correlation between VCSS composites and CEAP was weak (ρ = 0.372; p < .001). Attributes of VCSS that reflect more severe venous disease correlated more closely with CEAP classes, namely pigmentation (ρ = 0.444; p < .001), inflammation (ρ = 0.348; p < .001), induration (ρ = 0.352; p < .001), number of active ulcers (ρ = 0.497; p < .001), active ulcer size (ρ = 0.485; p < .001), and ulcer duration (ρ = 0.497; p < .001). The correlation between CEAP class and the other four components of VCSS were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

VCSS composite thresholds of 8.5, 11.5, and 13.5 are threshold values for detecting CEAP classification C3 and higher, C4 and higher, and C5 and higher, respectively. Consistent with prior work, VCSS appears to have a better ability to discriminate CVD at more severe CEAP classifications. In this registry, the correlation between VCSS and CEAP was found to be weak while components of VCSS that suggest more advanced disease exhibited the strongest correlation with CEAP.

Keywords

Venous clinical severity score clinical-etiology-anatomy-pathophysiology chronic venous disease epidemiology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Serra

Bracale

Chilà

, et al. Clinical and pathological correlations in chronic venous disease. Ann Vasc Surg 2022; 78: 19–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.06.041.

Poyyamoli

Mehta

Cherian

, et al. May-thurner syndrome. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2021; 11: 1104–1111. DOI: 10.21037/cdt.2020.03.07.

Visonà

Quere

Mazzolai

, et al. Post-thrombotic syndrome. Vasa 2021; 50: 331–340. DOI: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000946.

Raffetto

Mannello

. Pathophysiology of chronic venous disease. Int Angiol 2014; 33: 212–221.

Gogineni

Bommareddy

Chandana

, et al. Evaluation and usefulness of venous clinical severity score (VCSS) in patients of varicose veins, undergoing surgery in a tertiary care hospital. International Journal of Surgery Science 2021; 5: 209–211. DOI: 10.33545/surgery.2021.v5.i4d.784.

Kakkos

Rivera

Matsagas

, et al. Validation of the new venous severity scoring system in varicose vein surgery. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38: 224–228. DOI: 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00323-9.

Mallick

Sarkar

Gayen

, et al. Correlation of venous clinical severity score and venous disability score with dermatology life quality index in chronic venous insufficiency. Indian J Dermatol 2020; 65: 489–494. DOI: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_485_20.

Vasquez

Rabe

McLafferty

, et al. Revision of the venous clinical severity score: Venous outcomes consensus statement: special communication of the american venous forum ad hoc outcomes working group. J Vasc Surg 2010; 52: 1387–1396, DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.161.

Passman

McLafferty

Lentz

, 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 Surg 2011; 54: 2S–9S, DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.05.117.

10.

Poulose

Deo

Gogineni

, et al. Correlation of venous clinical severity score with dermatology life quality index among patients with chronic venous insufficiency: a cross-sectional study. Cureus 2021; 13: e17654. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.17654.

11.

Meissner

Natiello

Nicholls

. Performance characteristics of the venous clinical severity score. J Vasc Surg 2002; 36: 889–895, DOI: 10.1067/mva.2002.128637.

12.

Tan

MKH

Sutanto

Onida

, et al. The Relationship between vein diameters, clinical severity, and quality of life: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2019; 57: 851–857. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.01.024.

13.

Harris

Taylor

Thielke

, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf 2009; 42: 377–381. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

14.

Harris

Taylor

Minor

, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inf 2019; 95: 103208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.

15.

Ricci

Emmerich

Callas

, et al. Evaluating chronic venous disease with a new venous severity scoring system. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38: 909–915, DOI: 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00930-3.

16.

Lurie

Passman

Meisner

, et al. The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards. J Vasc Surg: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders 2020; 8: 342–352, DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.12.075.

17.

Murphy

Gibson

Sapoval

, et al. Pivotal study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the abre venous self-expanding stent system in patients with symptomatic iliofemoral venous outflow obstruction. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 2022; 15: e010960. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010960.

18.

Hong

Wang

Fang

, et al. Editor's choice – clinical efficacy of venastent - a novel iliac vein stent for non-thrombotic iliac vein lesions: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 63; 2022: 883–889, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.04.005.

19.

O’Sullivan

Karunanithy

Binkert

, et al. One year outcomes of the VIVO-EU study of treatment of symptomatic iliofemoral outflow obstruction with the zilver vena venous self-expanding stent. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2021; 44: 1930–1936. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-021-02969-0.