4.5 Article

Sex Differences in Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Venous Thromboembolism - From the COMMAND VTE Registry -

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 83, Issue 7, Pages 1581-+

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-19-0229

Keywords

Recurrence; Sex differences; Venous thromboembolism

Funding

  1. Research Institute for Production Development, Kyoto, Japan
  2. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: It remains controversial whether sex category is a risk for recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding among VTE patients. Methods and Results: The COMMAND VTE Registry is a multicenter registry enrolling 3,027 consecutive acute symptomatic VTE patients from 29 centers in Japan between January 2010 and August 2014. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of men and women. Men accounted for 1,169 (39%) and women 1,858 (61%). Compared with women, men were younger (64.9 +/- 14.7 vs. 68.6 +/- 15.6 years old, P<0.001), more often had prior VTE (7.2% vs. 5.1%, P=0.02), and less often had transient risk factors for VTE (30% vs. 40%, P<0.001). The proportions of active cancer and pulmonary embolism were comparable between men and women (24% vs. 22%, P=0.26; 56% vs. 57%, P=0.48, respectively). The cumulative 3-year incidences of recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and all-cause death were not significantly different between men and women (7.0% vs. 8.6%, P=0.47; 10.6% vs. 9.2%, P=0.25; 25.2% vs. 23.4%, P=0.35, respectively). The adjusted risks of men relative to women for recurrent VTE and for major bleeding remained insignificant (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63-1.09, P=0.17; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90-1.47, P=0.25, respectively). Conclusions: In real-world VTE patients, the clinical characteristics differed between men and women, but there was not a large sex-related difference in the risks for recurrent VTE or major bleeding.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available