Hormonal replacement therapy, prothrombotic mutations and the risk of venous thrombosis

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases the risk of venous thrombosis. We investigated whether this risk is affected by carriership of hereditary prothrombotic abnormalities. Therefore, we determined the two most common prothrombotic mutations, factor V Leiden and prothrombin 20210A in women who participated in a case-control study on venous thrombosis. Relative risks were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI95). Among 7 7 women aged 45-64 years with a first venous thrombosis, 51% were receiving HRT at the time of thrombosis, compared with 24% of control women (OR = 3.3, CI95 1.8-5.8). Among the patients, 23% had a prothrombotic defect, versus 7% among the control women (OR = 3.8, CI95 1.7- 8.5). Women who had factor V Leiden and used HRT had a 15-fold increased risk (OR = 15.5, CI95 3.1-77), which exceeded the expected joint odds ratio of 6.1 (under an additive model). We conclude that the thrombotic risk of HRT may particularly affect women with prothrombotic mutations. Efforts to avoid HRT in women with increased risk of thrombosis are advisable

Minor injuries as a risk factor for venous thrombosis

BACKGROUND: Injuries increase the risk of venous thrombosis. So far, most research has focused on major injuries that are accompanied by other risk factors for venous thrombosis, such as plaster casts and surgery. We studied the association of venous thrombosis with common minor injuries, such as minor sural muscle ruptures and ankle sprains.\ud \ud METHODS: We performed a large, population-based, case-control study (the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment of risk factors for venous thrombosis [MEGA] study), including consecutive patients with a first deep venous thrombosis of the leg or pulmonary embolism and control subjects. Participants with malignant neoplasms, those who underwent surgery, and those who had a plaster cast or extended bed rest were excluded.\ud \ud RESULTS: Of 2471 patients, 289 (11.7%), and of 3534 controls, 154 (4.4%) had a minor injury in the 3 months preceding the venous thrombosis (patients) or completion of the questionnaire (controls). Venous thrombosis was associated with previous minor injury (odds ratio adjusted for sex and age, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-3.8). The association was strongest for injuries that occurred in the 4 weeks before thrombosis and was not apparent before 10 weeks. Thrombosis was more strongly associated with minor injuries located in the leg (odds ratio adjusted for sex and age, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-6.7), while those located in other body parts were not associated. A 50-fold increased risk was found in factor V Leiden carriers with a leg injury compared with noncarriers without injury (odds ratio, 49.7; 95% confidence interval, 6.8-362.7).\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: Minor injuries in the leg are associated with greater risk of venous thrombosis. Because minor injuries are common, they could be major contributors to the occurrence of venous thrombosis\u

Current perspective of venous thrombosis in the upper\ud extremity

Venous thrombosis of the upper extremity is a rare disease. Therefore, not as much is known about risk factors, treatment and the risk of recurrence as for venous thrombosis of the leg. Only central venous catheters and strenuous exercise are commonly known risk factors for an upper extremity venous thrombosis. In this review an overview of the different risk factors, possible treatments and the complications for patients with a venous thrombosis of the upper extremity is give

Testing for inherited thrombophilia does not reduce the recurrence of venous thrombosis\ud

Background: Inherited thrombophilia is only weakly associated with recurrence in patients with a first venous thrombosis (VT). In spite of this, thrombophilia testing is often performed in these patients. Positive results may influence patient management such as prolonged anticoagulant treatment or intensified prophylaxis in high-risk situations. Objective: To investigate whether thrombophilia testing reduces the risk of recurrent VT by virtue of these management alterations. Methods: From a large case–control study of patients (MEGA study), aged 18–70 years, with a first VT between 1999 and 2004, we selected 197 patients who had had a recurrence during follow-up. We compared the incidence of thrombophilia testing to that of a control cohort of 324 patients. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for recurrent thrombosis in tested vs. non-tested patients. Only patients who were tested before recurrence were regarded as tested. All first and recurrent thrombotic events were objectively confirmed. Results: Thrombophilia tests were performed in 35% of cases and in 30% of controls. The OR for recurrence was 1.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–1.8] for tested vs. non-tested patients. After correction for age, sex, family history, geographic region, presence of clinical risk factors, and year of first VT, the OR remained unchanged. Discussion: Thrombophilia testing in patients with a first VT does not reduce the incidence of recurrence in clinical practice.\u