4.7 Article

Selective testing for thrombophilia in patients with first venous thrombosis: results from a retrospective family cohort study on absolute thrombotic risk for currently known thrombophilic defects in 2479 relatives

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 113, Issue 21, Pages 5314-5322

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-10-184879

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Prevention Fund/ZonMW (The Hague, The Netherlands) [28-2783]
  2. Dutch Heart Foundation (The Hague, The Netherlands) [99.187]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thrombophilia screening is controversial. In a retrospective family cohort, where probands had thrombosis and a thrombophilic defect, 2479 relatives were tested for thrombophilia. In antithrombin-, protein C-, and protein S-deficient relatives, annual incidences of venous thrombosis were 1.77% (95% CI, 1.14-2.60), 1.52% (95% CI, 1.06-2.11), and 1.90% (95% CI, 1.32-2.64), respectively, at a median age of 29 years and a positive family history of more than 20% symptomatic relatives. In relatives with factor V (FV) Leiden, prothrombin 20210G>A, or high FVIII levels, these were 0.49% (95% CI, 0.39-0.60), 0.34% (95% CI, 0.22-0.49), and 0.49% (95% CI, 0.41-0.51), respectively. High FIX, FXI, and TAFI, and hyperhomocysteinemia were not independent risk factors. Annual incidence of major bleeding in antithrombin-, protein C-, or protein S-deficient relatives on anticoagulants was 0.29% (95% CI, 0.03-1.04). Cumulative recurrence rates in relatives with antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency were 19% at 2 years, 40% at 5 years, and 55% at 10 years. In relatives with FV Leiden, prothrombin 20210G>A, or high levels FVIII, these were 7%, 11%, and 25%, respectively. Considering its clinical implications, thrombophilia testing should address hereditary deficiencies of antithrombin, protein C, and protein S in patients with first venous thrombosis at young age and/or a strong family history of venous thrombosis. (Blood. 2009; 113: 5314-5322)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available