4.8 Article

Hormone therapy and venous thromboembolism among postmenopausal women -: Impact of the route of estrogen administration and progestogens:: The ESTHER study

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 115, 期 7, 页码 840-845

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.642280

关键词

embolism; epidemiology; estrogens; progestogens; thrombosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Oral estrogen therapy increases the risk of venous thromboembolism ( VTE) in postmenopausal women. Transdermal estrogen may be safer. However, currently available data have limited the ability to investigate the wide variety of types of progestogen. Methods and Results - We performed a multicenter case - control study of VTE among postmenopausal women 45 to 70 years of age between 1999 and 2005 in France. We recruited 271 consecutive cases with a first documented episode of idiopathic VTE ( 208 hospital cases, 63 outpatient cases) and 610 controls ( 426 hospital controls, 184 community controls) matched for center, age, and admission date. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, odds ratios ( ORs) for VTE in current users of oral and transdermal estrogen compared with nonusers were 4.2 ( 95% CI, 1.5 to 11.6) and 0.9 ( 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.1), respectively. There was no significant association of VTE with micronized progesterone and pregnane derivatives ( OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.9 and OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.3, respectively). In contrast, norpregnane derivatives were associated with a 4- fold- increased VTE risk ( OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 10.0). Conclusions - Oral but not transdermal estrogen is associated with an increased VTE risk. In addition, our data suggest that norpregnane derivatives may be thrombogenic, whereas micronized progesterone and pregnane derivatives appear safe with respect to thrombotic risk. If confirmed, these findings could benefit women in the management of their menopausal symptoms with respect to the VTE risk associated with oral estrogen and use of progestogens.

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

4.8
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