4.4 Article

Comprehensive Assessment of the Hemostatic System in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome

期刊

SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 55-62

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564837

关键词

polycystic ovarian syndrome; hemostasis; thrombosis; plasminogen; PAI-1

资金

  1. School of Medical Sciences (RMIT)
  2. Helen MacPherson Smith Trust
  3. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Monash University)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) affects 12 to 19% of women and has reproductive and metabolic features (endothelial dysfunction, increased diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors). It also appears to have altered coagulation and fibrinolysis with a prothrombotic state with epidemiological evidence of increased venous thromboembolism. We aimed to comprehensively assess hemostasis in women with PCOS versus control women. In an established case-control cohort of lean, overweight, and obese women with (n=107) and without PCOS (n=67), with existing measures of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), hormonal, and metabolic markers, we also assessed prothrombin fragments 1 and 2 (PF1 & 2), plasminogen, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and thrombin generation (TG). Higher levels of ADMA (0.70 vs. 0.39 mu mol/L, p<0.01), PAI-1 (4.80 vs. 3.66 U/mL, p<0.01), and plasminogen (118.39 vs. 108.46%, p<0.01) were seen in PCOS versus controls, and persisted after adjustment for age and body mass index (BMI). PF1 & 2 was marginally lower (180.0 vs. 236.0 pmol/L, p=0.05), whereas tPA and TG were not different between groups, after adjustment for age and BMI. Significant relationships were observed between hormonal and metabolic factors with ADMA and PAI-1. We demonstrate impaired fibrinolysis in PCOS. In the context of abnormal endothelial function and known hormonal and metabolic abnormalities, this finding may underpin an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thrombosis in PCOS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据