4.7 Article

Influence of thrombophilia on risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism while on warfarin: results from a randomized trial

期刊

BLOOD
卷 112, 期 12, 页码 4432-4436

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-06-163279

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Ottawa, ON) [MOP 37695]
  2. Venous Thromboembolism [FRN 79846]
  3. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (Ottawa, ON)
  4. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario ( Toronto, ON)
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  6. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (Montreal, QC)
  7. University of Western Ontario (London, ON)
  8. Dalhousie University (Halifax, NS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We sought to determine whether thrombophilic defects increase recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) during warfarin therapy. Six hundred sixty-one patients with unprovoked VTE who were randomized to extended low-intensity (international normalized ratio [INR], 1.5-1.9) or conventional-intensity (INR, 2.0-3.0) anti-coagulant therapy were tested for thrombophilia and followed for a mean of 2.3 years. One or more thrombophilic defects were present in 42% of patients. The overall rate of recurrent VTE was 0.9% per patient-year. Recurrent VTE was not increased in the presence of factor V Leiden (hazard ratio [HR], 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.6); the 20210G> A prothrombin gene mutation (HR, 0); antithrombin deficiency (HR, 0); elevated factor VIII (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.4); elevated factor XI (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.0), or elevated homocysteine (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.3), but showed a trend to an increase with an antiphos-pholipid antibody (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 0.8-10.5). Compared with patients with no thrombophilic defects, the rate of recurrence was not increased in the presence of one (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.3) or more than one (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-3.4) defect. We conclude that single or multiple thrombophilic defects are not associated with a higher risk of recurrent VTE during warfarin therapy. (Blood. 2008;112:4432-4436)

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

4.7
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