4.6 Review

Antiphospholipid antibodies in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages 1-4

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2023.01.012

Keywords

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary; hypertension; Antibodies; Phospholipids; Lupus inhibitor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Acquired thrombophilia, specifically antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), may contribute to the development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Young patients who experience an unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE) or PE triggered by mild risk factors should be tested for aPL. If positive, close monitoring and lifelong anticoagulant therapy should be considered because aPL-induced thrombophilia increases the risk of recurrent PE leading to CTEPH. The presence of lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anti-cardiolipin (aCL), and anti-& beta;2-glycoprotein I (a & beta;2GPI) antibodies indicates the highest risk of recurrence and necessitates treatment with warfarin for maximum protection.
Acquired thrombophilia and in particular the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) may play an important role in the development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Young patients suffering from an episode of unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE), or PE provoked by mild risk factors, should be tested for aPL. In case of a positive result, they should be closely followed up and lifelong anticoagulant treatment should be considered. Indeed, aPL-induced thrombophilia may favor PE recurrence with the consequence of possible CTEPH development. The aPL profiles play an important role in this pathway. Patients with PE and triple positivity (lupus anticoagulant, LAC, anti-cardiolipin, aCL, and anti-& beta;2-glycoprotein I, a & beta;2GPI) are at the highest risk of recurrence and deserve maximum protection by anticoagulant treatment with warfarin.

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