Comparison of disease-specific quality of life tools in patients with chronic venous disease

Abstract

This work was presented as a poster in the American Venous Forum 25th Annual Meeting; 28 February 2013; Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome measure in the treatment for chronic venous disease. The Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and the ChronIc Venous Insufficiency quality of life Questionnaire (CIVIQ-14) are two validated disease-specific QoL questionnaires in current use. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between the AVVQ and the CIVIQ-14 to enable better comparison between studies and to compare these disease-specific QoL tools with generic QoL and clinician-driven tools. Adults attending our institution for management of their varicose veins completed the AVVQ, CIVIQ-14 and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Clinical data, CEAP classification and the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) were collected. The relationship between the AVVQ and CIVIQ-14 scores was analysed using Spearman's correlation. The AVVQ and CIVIQ-14 scores were also analysed with a generic QoL tool (EQ-5D) and a clinician-driven tool, the VCSS. One hundred patients, mean age 57.5 (44 males; 56 females), participated in the study. The median AVVQ score was 21.9 (range 0-74) and the median CIVIQ-14 score was 30 (range 0-89). A strong correlation was demonstrated between the AVVQ and CIVIQ-14 scores (r = 0.8; p < 0.0001). Strong correlation was maintained for patients with C1-3 disease (r = 0.7; p < 0.0001) and C4-6 disease (r = 0.8; p < 0.0001). The VCSS correlated strongly with the AVVQ and CIVIQ-14 scores (r = 0.7; p < 0.0001 and r = 0.7; p < 0.0001, respectively). Both the AVVQ and CIVIQ-14 scores correlated well with the EQ-5D score (r = -0.5; p < 0.0001 and r = -0.7; p < 0.0001, respectively). This study demonstrates that there is good correlation between two widely used varicose vein specific QoL tools (AVVQ and CIVIQ-14) across the whole spectrum of disease severity. Strong correlation exists between these disease-specific QoL tools and generic and clinician-driven tools. Our findings confirm valid comparisons between studies using either disease-specific QoL tool.