4.6 Article

Sex-specific differences in the presenting location of a first venous thromboembolism

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 1344-1350

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jth.13712

关键词

anatomy; epidemiology; pulmonary embolism; sex; venous thromboembolism

资金

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2013T083]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) differs between men and women. Some risk factors seem to influence the presenting location of VTE. Sex-specific differences in the presenting VTE location have not been studied extensively. Methods: We analyzed data from the MEGA case-control study and the Hokusai- VTE study, and used published data from the RIETE registry. Data from patients with a symptomatic first VTE were included (MEGA, n = 4953; Hokusai-VTE, n = 6720; RIETE, n = 40 028). Distributions of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and combined DVT and PE as the presenting VTE location were calculated for men and women, and presented as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sex-specific differences were explored for different age categories and for unprovoked and provoked events. Results: In the MEGA study, PE was the presenting location in 35.5% of women and in 29.5% of men with VTE (difference 6.0%, 95% CI 3.4-8.6). In the Hokusai-VTE study, these proportions were 35.1% for women and 25.2% for men (difference 10.0%, 95% CI 7.8-12.2). In the RIETE registry, PE (with or without DVT) was also observed more often as the presenting location in women (53.3%) than in men (47.7%), with a difference of 5.6% (95% CI 4.76.6). The observed higher proportion of PE as the presenting location in women was present in all age groups and was most prominent among unprovoked VTE events. Conclusions: In three large studies, the distribution of the presenting VTE location differed consistently between the sexes, whereby PE was more often the primary location of presentation in women than in men.

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