Development and evaluation of the Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History questionnaire in patients with claudication

BACKGROUND: The Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) is used to estimate walking impairment in patients with peripheral artery disease; however, it faces frequent errors when self-completed and is complex to score. We aimed to validate an alternative, easily scored four-item tool, the Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History (WELCH) questionnaire. METHODS: The WIQ and WELCH were prospectively tested in five centers. We studied 434 patients, among which 298 had a treadmill test (3.2 km/h; 10% slope) to determine their maximum walking time (MWT), and 30 were seen twice during the study period. RESULTS: After self-completion, we found at least one error in 177 WIQ (40.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3%-45.5%) vs 56 WELCH (12.9%; 95% CI, 10.1%-16.4%) questionnaires (P < .0001). When scoring only questionnaires without missing or duplicate answers, 267 WIQ (61.5%; 95% CI, 56.9%-66.0%) vs 393 WELCH (90.6%; 95% CI, 87.4%-93.0%) questionnaires could be scored (P < .001). The median MWT was 233 seconds (interquartile range, 133-654 seconds) for the 298 patients who had a treadmill test. When the 296 patients who had both questionnaire scores available were studied, no difference was found between the Pearson r coefficient of correlation of the WIQ (r = 0.615) and the WELCH (r = 0.653) with MWT (P = .211). In the 30 patients who completed the WELCH twice, correlation was r = 0.839 (P < .001) between the two scores in 22 nonrevascularized patients, and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.830 +/- 0.105 (P < .01) to discriminate the eight revascularized from the 22 nonrevascularized patients. CONCLUSIONS: The WELCH questionnaire is a simple tool to estimate walking limitation in patients with suspected peripheral artery disease. It is easily scored by mental calculation. It may help to standardize the estimation of walking limitation in routine clinical practice

Comparison of reported symptoms to those produced by treadmill testing in patients with claudication suspected of arterial origin

AIM: We aimed at comparing lower limb symptoms reported by history to those observed during a standard treadmill test. METHODS: We retrospectively studied symptomatic patients referred over a three years period for suspected arterial claudication and used the Edinburgh claudication questionnaire before exercise and symptoms observed on a treadmill. We confronted, right and left, proximal (lower-back thigh or buttocks) and distal (leg or foot) lower-limb symptoms before and during treadmill exercise. Results are reported as mean +/- standard deviation for percentage and 95% confidence interval and Kappa statistics are performed. RESULTS: Of 795 patients with claudication, aged 63 +/- 12 years, treadmill test resulted in 715 reporting lower-limb symptoms on treadmill. Cohen\u27s Kappa for the site-specific analysis of symptoms by history vs. symptoms on treadmill was 0.509 +/- 0.21 (P < 0.01), showing a moderate agreement. Nevertheless, symptoms on treadmill reproduced, at least partly, symptoms by history in 675 (84.9% 95CI: 82.3-87.2) of patients, although symptoms on treadmill were strictly of the same localizations as symptoms by history in only 378 (47.6% 95CI: 44.1-51.0) of all studied patients. Last, 279 patients (35.1% of all patients) reported non limb symptoms on treadmill. CONCLUSION: Although on a site by site basis the concordance of symptoms by history to symptoms by treadmill is moderate, most patients reproduced their usual symptoms on treadmill. Age does not seem to impair the concordance. Last, beyond the sole measurement of maximal walking capacity, treadmill frequently unmasks non-limb limiting symptoms that may require clinical attention