OBJECTIVE: The wide variety of outcome measures to evaluate patients with varicose veins poses significant difficulties when comparing clinical trials. In addition, the relationship between different outcome measures is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to compare anatomical, hemodynamic, and clinical outcomes with disease-specific quality-of-life tools in patients undergoing treatment for varicose veins. METHODS:Patients undergoing treatment for symptomatic veins in a single unit were studied. Assessments included duplex ultrasonography, digital photoplethysmography, evaluation of Venous Clinical Severity Scores and CEAP scores, generic (Short Form 12 [SF12]) and disease-specific (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire [AVVQ], and Specific Quality-of-life and OutcomeResponse-Venous [SQOR-V]) questionnaires. Patients were reviewed at 6 weeks when hemodynamic, clinical, and quality-of-life assessments were repeated. The relationships between these outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The AVVQ showed a strong positive correlation with the SQOR-V (Spearman coefficient 0.702; P < .001) and weaker, but significant correlations with the SF12 physical and mental component scores and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (P < .001, P = .019, and P < .001, respectively, Spearman correlation). No correlations were observed between the AVVQ and photoplethysmography results (Spearman coefficient -0.042; P = .606), and weak correlations were observed with the AVVQ and anatomical reflux. At 6 weeks, functional, clinical, and hemodynamic measurements were all responsive to changes following interventions; however, correlations observed between changes in disease-specific quality-of-life and generic, clinical, and hemodynamic outcomes were weak. CONCLUSIONS: Both the AVVQ and SQOR-V questionnaire are sensitive and responsive disease-specific questionnaires, which correlate with generic and clinical outcomes to some extent. Anatomical and hemodynamic measurements correlated poorly with functional outcomes both preoperatively and following interventions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The wide variety of outcome measures to evaluate patients with varicose veins poses significant difficulties when comparing clinical trials. In addition, the relationship between different outcome measures is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to compare anatomical, hemodynamic, and clinical outcomes with disease-specific quality-of-life tools in patients undergoing treatment for varicose veins. METHODS:Patients undergoing treatment for symptomatic veins in a single unit were studied. Assessments included duplex ultrasonography, digital photoplethysmography, evaluation of Venous Clinical Severity Scores and CEAP scores, generic (Short Form 12 [SF12]) and disease-specific (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire [AVVQ], and Specific Quality-of-life and Outcome Response-Venous [SQOR-V]) questionnaires. Patients were reviewed at 6 weeks when hemodynamic, clinical, and quality-of-life assessments were repeated. The relationships between these outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The AVVQ showed a strong positive correlation with the SQOR-V (Spearman coefficient 0.702; P < .001) and weaker, but significant correlations with the SF12 physical and mental component scores and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (P < .001, P = .019, and P < .001, respectively, Spearman correlation). No correlations were observed between the AVVQ and photoplethysmography results (Spearman coefficient -0.042; P = .606), and weak correlations were observed with the AVVQ and anatomical reflux. At 6 weeks, functional, clinical, and hemodynamic measurements were all responsive to changes following interventions; however, correlations observed between changes in disease-specific quality-of-life and generic, clinical, and hemodynamic outcomes were weak. CONCLUSIONS: Both the AVVQ and SQOR-V questionnaire are sensitive and responsive disease-specific questionnaires, which correlate with generic and clinical outcomes to some extent. Anatomical and hemodynamic measurements correlated poorly with functional outcomes both preoperatively and following interventions.
Authors: R P Engelberger; A Indermühle; F Baumann; J Fahrni; N Diehm; N Kucher; U Egermann; K Laederach; I Baumgartner; T Willenberg Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Justyna Mikuła-Pietrasik; Paweł Uruski; Krzysztof Aniukiewicz; Patrycja Sosińska; Zbigniew Krasiński; Andrzej Tykarski; Krzysztof Książek Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 6.543
Authors: D Carradice; J Forsyth; A Mohammed; C Leung; L Hitchman; A E Harwood; T Wallace; G E Smith; B Campbell; I Chetter Journal: BJS Open Date: 2018-08-29