Venous severity scoring: An adjunct to venous outcome assessment

Robert B. Rutherford, Frank T. Padberg, Anthony J. Comerota, Robert L. Kistner, Mark H. Meissner, Gregory (Greg) Moneta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

517 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Some measure of disease severity is needed to properly compare the outcomes of the various approaches to the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Comparing the outcomes of two or more different treatments in a clinical trial, or the same treatment in two or more reports from the literature cannot be done with confidence unless the relative severity of the venous disease in each treatment group is known. The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology- Anatomic-Pathophysiologic) system is an excellent classification schemes but it cannot serve the purpose of venous severity scoring because many of its components are relatively static and others use detailed alphabetical designations. A disease severity scoring scheme needs to be quantifiable, with gradable elements that can change in response to treatment. However, an American Venous Forum committee on venous outcomes assessment has developed a venous severity scoring system based on the best usable elements of the CEAP system. Two scores are proposed. The first is a Venous Clinical Severity Score: nine clinical characteristics of chronic venous disease are graded from 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, severe) with specific criteria to avoid overlap or arbitrary scoring. Zero to three points are added for differences in background conservative therapy (compression and elevation) to produce a 30 point-maximum flat scale. The second is a Venous Segmental Disease Score, which combines the Anatomic and Pathophysiologic components of CEAP. Major venous segments are graded according to presence of reflux and/or obstruction. It is entirely based on venous imaging, primarily duplex scan but also phlebographic findings. This scoring scheme weights 11 venous segments for their relative importance when involved with reflux and/or obstruction, with a maximum score of 10. A third score is simply a modification of the existing CEAP disability score that eliminates reference to work and an 8-hour working day, substituting instead the patient's prior normal activities. These new scoring schemes are intended to complement the current CEAP system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1307-1312
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume31
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Therapeutics
Venous Insufficiency
Chronic Disease
Clinical Trials
Weights and Measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Rutherford, R. B., Padberg, F. T., Comerota, A. J., Kistner, R. L., Meissner, M. H., & Moneta, G. G. (2000). Venous severity scoring: An adjunct to venous outcome assessment. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 31(6), 1307-1312. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2000.107094

Venous severity scoring : An adjunct to venous outcome assessment. / Rutherford, Robert B.; Padberg, Frank T.; Comerota, Anthony J.; Kistner, Robert L.; Meissner, Mark H.; Moneta, Gregory (Greg).

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2000, p. 1307-1312.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rutherford, RB, Padberg, FT, Comerota, AJ, Kistner, RL, Meissner, MH & Moneta, GG 2000, 'Venous severity scoring: An adjunct to venous outcome assessment', Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1307-1312. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2000.107094
Rutherford, Robert B. ; Padberg, Frank T. ; Comerota, Anthony J. ; Kistner, Robert L. ; Meissner, Mark H. ; Moneta, Gregory (Greg). / Venous severity scoring : An adjunct to venous outcome assessment. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2000 ; Vol. 31, No. 6. pp. 1307-1312.
@article{c59ab10c0ab94f598e73725efd2d954b,
title = "Venous severity scoring: An adjunct to venous outcome assessment",
abstract = "Some measure of disease severity is needed to properly compare the outcomes of the various approaches to the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Comparing the outcomes of two or more different treatments in a clinical trial, or the same treatment in two or more reports from the literature cannot be done with confidence unless the relative severity of the venous disease in each treatment group is known. The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology- Anatomic-Pathophysiologic) system is an excellent classification schemes but it cannot serve the purpose of venous severity scoring because many of its components are relatively static and others use detailed alphabetical designations. A disease severity scoring scheme needs to be quantifiable, with gradable elements that can change in response to treatment. However, an American Venous Forum committee on venous outcomes assessment has developed a venous severity scoring system based on the best usable elements of the CEAP system. Two scores are proposed. The first is a Venous Clinical Severity Score: nine clinical characteristics of chronic venous disease are graded from 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, severe) with specific criteria to avoid overlap or arbitrary scoring. Zero to three points are added for differences in background conservative therapy (compression and elevation) to produce a 30 point-maximum flat scale. The second is a Venous Segmental Disease Score, which combines the Anatomic and Pathophysiologic components of CEAP. Major venous segments are graded according to presence of reflux and/or obstruction. It is entirely based on venous imaging, primarily duplex scan but also phlebographic findings. This scoring scheme weights 11 venous segments for their relative importance when involved with reflux and/or obstruction, with a maximum score of 10. A third score is simply a modification of the existing CEAP disability score that eliminates reference to work and an 8-hour working day, substituting instead the patient's prior normal activities. These new scoring schemes are intended to complement the current CEAP system.",
author = "Rutherford, {Robert B.} and Padberg, {Frank T.} and Comerota, {Anthony J.} and Kistner, {Robert L.} and Meissner, {Mark H.} and Moneta, {Gregory (Greg)}",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1067/mva.2000.107094",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "1307--1312",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Venous severity scoring

T2 - An adjunct to venous outcome assessment

AU - Rutherford, Robert B.

AU - Padberg, Frank T.

AU - Comerota, Anthony J.

AU - Kistner, Robert L.

AU - Meissner, Mark H.

AU - Moneta, Gregory (Greg)

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Some measure of disease severity is needed to properly compare the outcomes of the various approaches to the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Comparing the outcomes of two or more different treatments in a clinical trial, or the same treatment in two or more reports from the literature cannot be done with confidence unless the relative severity of the venous disease in each treatment group is known. The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology- Anatomic-Pathophysiologic) system is an excellent classification schemes but it cannot serve the purpose of venous severity scoring because many of its components are relatively static and others use detailed alphabetical designations. A disease severity scoring scheme needs to be quantifiable, with gradable elements that can change in response to treatment. However, an American Venous Forum committee on venous outcomes assessment has developed a venous severity scoring system based on the best usable elements of the CEAP system. Two scores are proposed. The first is a Venous Clinical Severity Score: nine clinical characteristics of chronic venous disease are graded from 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, severe) with specific criteria to avoid overlap or arbitrary scoring. Zero to three points are added for differences in background conservative therapy (compression and elevation) to produce a 30 point-maximum flat scale. The second is a Venous Segmental Disease Score, which combines the Anatomic and Pathophysiologic components of CEAP. Major venous segments are graded according to presence of reflux and/or obstruction. It is entirely based on venous imaging, primarily duplex scan but also phlebographic findings. This scoring scheme weights 11 venous segments for their relative importance when involved with reflux and/or obstruction, with a maximum score of 10. A third score is simply a modification of the existing CEAP disability score that eliminates reference to work and an 8-hour working day, substituting instead the patient's prior normal activities. These new scoring schemes are intended to complement the current CEAP system.

AB - Some measure of disease severity is needed to properly compare the outcomes of the various approaches to the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Comparing the outcomes of two or more different treatments in a clinical trial, or the same treatment in two or more reports from the literature cannot be done with confidence unless the relative severity of the venous disease in each treatment group is known. The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology- Anatomic-Pathophysiologic) system is an excellent classification schemes but it cannot serve the purpose of venous severity scoring because many of its components are relatively static and others use detailed alphabetical designations. A disease severity scoring scheme needs to be quantifiable, with gradable elements that can change in response to treatment. However, an American Venous Forum committee on venous outcomes assessment has developed a venous severity scoring system based on the best usable elements of the CEAP system. Two scores are proposed. The first is a Venous Clinical Severity Score: nine clinical characteristics of chronic venous disease are graded from 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, severe) with specific criteria to avoid overlap or arbitrary scoring. Zero to three points are added for differences in background conservative therapy (compression and elevation) to produce a 30 point-maximum flat scale. The second is a Venous Segmental Disease Score, which combines the Anatomic and Pathophysiologic components of CEAP. Major venous segments are graded according to presence of reflux and/or obstruction. It is entirely based on venous imaging, primarily duplex scan but also phlebographic findings. This scoring scheme weights 11 venous segments for their relative importance when involved with reflux and/or obstruction, with a maximum score of 10. A third score is simply a modification of the existing CEAP disability score that eliminates reference to work and an 8-hour working day, substituting instead the patient's prior normal activities. These new scoring schemes are intended to complement the current CEAP system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033945652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033945652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mva.2000.107094

DO - 10.1067/mva.2000.107094

M3 - Article

C2 - 10842165

AN - SCOPUS:0033945652

VL - 31

SP - 1307

EP - 1312

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 6

ER -