Search

Objective: A critical goal in the care of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is to optimize their health status; that is, their symptoms, function, and quality of life. Social support has been proposed to be a predictor of disease-specific health status in patients with PAD. However, the prevalence of low perceived social support, the association with health status outcomes, and the interaction with other biopsychosocial variables, is unknown. Our aim was to assess the association of baseline perceived social support with health status at 12 months in patients with PAD., Methods: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Related Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories (PORTRAIT) registry, which enrolled patients with PAD in the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia from 2011 to 2015, was used. Perceived social support was assessed at baseline with the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease Patients (ENRICHD) Social Support Inventory (ESSI), and disease-specific (Peripheral Artery Disease Questionnaire [PAQ]) and generic health status (Euro-Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale [VAS] and EQ-5D-3L Index) questionnaires were assessed at baseline and 12 months. Low social support was defined as a score of ≤3 on two items and an ESSI score of ≤18. A hierarchical mixed level linear regression model adjusting for biopsychosocial variables was used to assess the association between low perceived social support and the ESSI score with health status at 12 months., Results: A total of 949 patients were included (mean age, 67.64 ± 9.32 years; 37.9% female), with low social support being present in 18.2%. Patients with low social support were more likely to not be married or to be living alone (50.0% vs 77.5%; P < .001); have more financial constraints; have more depressive, stress, and anxiety symptoms; and have lower disease-specific and generic health status at baseline and at 12 months. In the unadjusted model, low social support was associated with a -7.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], -10.97 to -3.07) point reduction in the PAQ, -7.43 (95% CI, -10.33 to -4.54) in the VAS, and -0.06 (95% CI, -0.09 to -0.03) in the EQ-5D-3L Index. Adjusting for biopsychosocial factors minimally attenuated these associations (PAQ: -6.52; 95% CI, -10.55 to -2.49; P = .002; VAS: -5.39; 95% CI, 8.36 to -2.42; P < .001; EQ-5D-3L Index: -0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.01; P = .022). The ESSI per-point score was associated with a decrease of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.18-0.85; P = .003) in PAQ and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.12-0.61; P = .004) in the VAS., Conclusions: Among patients with PAD, low social support was frequent and associated with a lower health status at 1 year independent of other biopsychosocial variables. Improving social support could improve health status and outcomes in PAD., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Chronic venous disease is a common condition and has a significant impact on patients' health status. Validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess health status are needed to measure health status. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the current validation evidence for disease-specific PROMs for chronic venous disease and provides a framework for their use in the clinical setting., Methods: A literature search in OVID Embase and Medline was conducted to identify relevant English-language studies of chronic venous disease that used disease-specific PROMs between January 1, 1993, and June 30, 2022. Abstracts and titles from identified studies were screened by four investigators, and full-text articles were subsequently screened for eligibility. Data on validation of disease-specific PROMs was abstracted from each included article. Classical test theory was used as a framework to examine a priori defined validation criteria for content validity, reliability (construct validity, internal reliability, and test-retest reliability), responsiveness, and expansion of the validation evidence base (use in randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research, cultural or linguistic translations, predictive validity, or establishing the minimal clinically important difference threshold, defined as smallest amount an outcome or measure is perceived as a meaningful change to patients). The PROMs were categorized into three groups based on the manifestations of disease of the population for which they were developed. The overall validity of each PROM was assessed across three stages of validation including content validity (phase 1); construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness (phase 2); and expansion of the validation evidence base (phase 3)., Results: Of 2338 unique studies screened, 112 studies (4.8%) met inclusion criteria. The eight disease-specific PROMs identified were categorized into three groups: (1) overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6); (2) C1 to C4 disease; and (3) C5 to C6 disease. Assessed by group, the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C1 to C4 disease, and the Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C5 to C6 disease. There were no PROMs that met all criteria for validation for use in overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6)., Conclusions: Of the eight PROMs assessed in this review, only two met prespecified criteria at each phase for validation. The Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire and Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire should be considered for use in patients with chronic venous disease without venous ulcers and with venous ulcers, respectively., Competing Interests: Disclosures C.M.-H. reports unrestricted research grants from Philips and Shockwave and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Cook, Medtronic, and Optum Labs. K.G.S. reports unrestricted research grants from Philips, Merck, Shockwave, and Johnson & Johnson; is a consultant for Optum Labs, Cook, Tegus, Twill Inc, and Abbott Vascular., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)