4.6 Article

Prediction of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism by Clot Lysis Time: A Prospective Cohort Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051447

关键词

-

资金

  1. Osterreichische Nationalbank
  2. Medizinisch-Wissenschaftlicher Fonds des Burgermeisters der Bundeshauptstadt Wien

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a chronic disease, which tends to recur. Whether an abnormal fibrinolytic system is associated with an increased risk of VTE is unclear. We assessed the relationship between fibrinolytic capacity (reflected by clot lysis time [CLT]) and risk of recurrent VTE. We followed 704 patients (378 women; mean age 48 yrs) with a first unprovoked VTE for an average of 46 months after anticoagulation withdrawal. Patients with natural coagulation inhibitor deficiency, lupus anticoagulant, cancer, homozygosity for factor V Leiden or prothrombin mutation, or requirement for indefinite anticoagulation were excluded. Study endpoint was symptomatic recurrent VTE. For measurement of CLT, a tissue factor-induced clot was lysed by adding tissue-type plasminogen activator. Time between clot formation and lysis was determined by measuring the turbidity. 135 (19%) patients had recurrent VTE. For each increase in CLT of 10 minutes, the crude relative risk (RR) of recurrence was 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.25; p = 0.02) and was 1.08 (95% CI 0.98-1.20; p = 0.13) after adjustment for age and sex. For women only, the adjusted RR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.91-1.42, p = 0.22) for each increase in CLT of 10 minutes. CLT values in the 4th quartile of the female patient population, as compared to values in the 1st quartile, conferred a risk of recurrence of 3.28 (95% CI, 1.07-10.05; p = 0.04). No association between CLT and recurrence risk was found in men. Hypofibrinolysis as assessed by CLT confers a moderate increase in the risk of recurrent VTE. A weak association between CLT and risk of recurrence was found in women only.

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

4.6
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