4.4 Review

Environmental and Genetic Risk Factors Associated with Venous Thromboembolism

Journal

SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS
Volume 42, Issue 8, Pages 808-820

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1592333

Keywords

venous thromboembolism; epidemiology; genetics; risk factors

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  2. [T32 HL098048]
  3. [R01 HL116854]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and a combination of environmental and genetic risk factors contributes to VTE risk. Within environmental risk factors, some are provoking (e.g., cancer, surgery, trauma or fracture, immobilization, pregnancy and the postpartum period, long-distance travel, hospitalization, catheterization, and acute infection) and others are nonprovoking (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index and obesity, oral contraceptive or hormone therapy use, corticosteroid use, statin use, diet, physical activity, sedentary time, and air pollution). Additionally, VTE has a strong genetic basis, with approximately 50 to 60% of the variance in VTE incidence attributed to genetic effects. Some genetic susceptibility variants that contribute to risk have been identified in candidate genes, mostly related to the clotting system and responsible for inherited hypercoagulable states (e.g., factor V Leiden, prothrombin, fibrinogen gamma, or blood group non-O). Other susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms have been identified from genome-wide association studies, such as the two new loci in TSPAN15 (rs78707713) and SCL44A2 (rs2288904) genes. Risk factors are not always associated with VTE in isolation; however, and an understanding of how environmental and genetic factors interact may provide insight into the pathophysiology of VTE, possibly identifying opportunities for targeted prevention and treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available