4.6 Article

Effects of race and ethnicity on the incidence of venous thromboembolism

Journal

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
Volume 123, Issue -, Pages S11-S17

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0049-3848(09)70136-7

Keywords

Venous thromboembolism; Disparities; Race; Risk factors; Epidemiology; Deep-vein thrombosis; Pulmonary embolism

Funding

  1. Hibbard E. Williams Endowment at UC Davis
  2. National Institutes of Health grant [1-RO3-CA99527-01]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R03CA099527] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although there is strong evidence that the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies significantly among different ethnic/racial groups, the genetic, physiologic and/or clinical basis for these differences remain largely undefined. African-American patients have a significantly higher rate of incident VTE, particularly following exposure to a provoking risk factor such as surgery, medical illness, trauma, etc. In addition, African-Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE) than deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) compared to Caucasian and other racial groups. On the other extreme, Asians/Pacific Islanders have a 70% lower prevalence of VTE and this is true for both idiopathic VTE and provoked, or 'secondary', VTE. Hispanics have a significantly lower prevalence of VTE compared to Caucasians, but higher than Asians/Pacific Islanders. The incidence of recurrent VTE varies depending on gender, type of thromboembolic event and race. Further research is needed in order to determine the fundamental differences between racial/ethnic groups that explain the observed differences in the prevalence of VTE. Race/ethnicity should be considered an important factor in the risk-stratification of patients with suspected VTE or patients at some risk for developing VTE. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available