Comparison Between Patients-Reported Outcome Measure for Vascular Malformations Questionnaire (PROVAM) and Outcome measures for VAscular Malformations (OVAMA) Responses in Patients with Low-Flow Vascular Malformations

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

4:21 PM – 4:30 PM

Location: Phoenix Convention Center, 224AB

Presenting Author(s)

Tushar Garg, MD (he/him/his)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Disclosure information not submitted.

Author/Co-author(s)

Natalie Y. Ring, MD

Resident
Johns Hopkins University
CW

Clifford Weiss, MD, FSIR, FCIRSE

Professor of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering
Johns Hopkins Univeristy School of Medicine

Disclosure(s):

Clifford Weiss, MD, FSIR, FCIRSE: Boston Scientific: Consultant (Ongoing), Intellectual Property Rights (Ongoing), Research Grant Recipient (Ongoing); Guerbet: Research Grant Recipient (Ongoing); Medtronic: Consultant (Ongoing), Research Grant Recipient (Ongoing); Siemens Healthineers: Consultant (Ongoing), Research Grant Recipient (Ongoing)

Purpose:

To assess the relevance of the Patients-Reported Outcome Measure for Vascular Malformations Questionnaire (PROVAM) and Outcome measures for VAscular Malformations (OVAMA) surveys in patients with low-flow vascular malformations (VMs) affecting different parts of the body.

Materials and Methods:

From 12/2021 to 8/2022, 118 consecutive patients completed both PROVAM and OVAMA at our vascular anomalies clinic. At the end of the survey, patients were asked four additional questions, that assess which survey is most relevant to their condition, is easier to complete, more comprehensively assesses their health, and is overall preferred. Variables recorded included the age of the patient, location of the VM, PROVAM pain assessment score, emotional and social impacts assessment score, physical function assessment score for head and neck (H&N) and upper extremity, lower extremity, and trunk (ULT), as well as OVAMA general problems score and appearance score. Fischer’s exact, Chi-squared, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results:

The mean age of the cohort was 28.8 ± 17.7 years, with 41.5% (49/118) VMs affecting H&N and the rest affecting ULT. 41.5% (49/118) found PROVAM to be more relevant to their condition, 29.7% (35/118) found OVAMA to be more relevant, and 28.8% (34/118) had no preference (p=.07). The OVAMA appearance score was higher [48.9(37.8-60) vs. 40 (31.1-51.1); p=.02] in patients who found OVAMA to be a more relevant survey. 47.4% (56/118) found OVAMA easier to complete, 33.6% (40/118) had no preference and 18.6% (22/118) found PROVAM easier (p< 0.001). However, 47.4% (56/118) indicated PROVAM assessed their health more completely, 33.9% (35/118) had no preference, and 22.9% (27/118) chose OVAMA (p< 0.001). Overall, there was a similar number of patients who preferred PROVAM (35.6%, 42/118), OVAMA (30.5%, 36/118), or had no preference (33.9%, 40/118) (p=0.7). Patient who preferred OVAMA were more likely to have H&N VMs (58.3%, 21/36 vs. 33.3%, 14/42; p=.04) and higher OVAMA appearance score [48.9(38.3-57.8) vs. 38.9(31.1-51.1); p=.02]. The PROVAM scores and OVAMA general problems scores were not different between any sub-groups (p >.05).

Conclusion:

The study demonstrates that PROVAM was a more comprehensive survey that assessed health more completely when compared to OVAMA. However, OVAMA was a more relevant and preferred survey in patients whose VMs affected their appearance and was located in the H&N.