Study suggests Villalta scale may better capture impact of post-thrombotic syndrome on patient-reported QoL than VCSS

469

In a comparison of two clinical scales that assess quality of life (QoL) in post-thrombotic syndrome, Angela Lee (McGill University, Montreal, Canada) and colleagues conclude that, when a single scale is used for this purpose, the Villalta scale will better capture the impact of post-thrombotic syndrome on patient-reported QoL than will the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS).

Lee et al detail that the Villalta score and the VCSS are “strongly correlated”. However, they state that the Villalta score has a “substantially higher correlation” with venous disease specific and general QoL than the VCSS. These findings were recently published online in the Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders.

In order to determine which of the Villalta or the VCSS is better at capturing clinically important post-thrombotic syndrome and its severity, as measured against patient-reported QoL scores, the investigators performed a secondary analysis of the Acute venous thrombosis: thrombus removal with adjunctive catheter-directed thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial study population.

Lee and colleagues calculated the correlations of the Villalta scores and VCSS scores with QoL scores (the Short-Form Health Survey-36 physical component score/mental component score [SF-36 PCS/MCS] and the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study-QoL/Symptom questionnaire [VEINES-QoL/Sym)]) at each study visit—six-month, 12-month, 18-month, and 24-month follow-up.

The authors report that the median correlation between Villalta scores and VCSS scores was 0.72. Specifically, they note that the median of the correlations between the Villalta scores and VEINES-QoL and VEINES-Sym scores at all follow-up visits were -0.39 and -0.41, respectively. They add that between VCSS and SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, the median of the correlations were -0.32 and -0.13, respectively. Finally, Lee and colleagues note that the impact of covariate adjustment by age, sex, and body mass index was “minor”.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here