Retrospective Cohort of Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism Patients: What Proportion Have Potent Thrombophilias Necessitating Indefinite Anticoagulants?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Thrombophilia testing in unprovoked venous thromboembolism patients (VTE) is controversial. Common thrombophilias such as Factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene variant appear to not importantly increase the risk of VTE recurrence, and thus are not considered in anticoagulation management decisions. However, patients with potent thrombophilias such as antiphospholipid antibodies (APLA), antithrombin deficiency, protein C and S deficiency, and homozygous genetic thrombophilias or combined defects are at higher risk of recurrence and it is recommended that they receive long-term anticoagulation. If the proportion of patients with "potent" thrombophilia is high then thrombophilia testing should be conducted. We sought to determine the proportion of unprovoked VTE patients with "potent" thrombophilia. Methods All patients with managed in our oral anticoagulation management system in the period from 1998 to 2015 were potentially eligible for the study. Inclusion criteria were: 1) symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE unprovoked proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Exclusion criteria were: 1) cancer or myeloproliferative disease at the time of VTE diagnosis; 2) no cast, surgery, trauma or immobilization (>3 days in bed 90% of waking hours) in the 90 days prior to diagnosis. We selected unprovoked VTE patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2010, as thrombophilia testing was relatively universal and available in our electronic system in that time frame (N=1344). We then selected a convenience sample of N=1165. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with "potent" thrombophilia (potent= homozygous Factor V Leiden, homozygous Prothrombin gene variant, APLA, protein C, protein S or anti-thrombin deficiency or combined deficiencies). Results In 1165 patients with unprovoked VTE, complete screening was done in 470 patients (40.34%) and 976 (83.78%) had at least one thrombophilia test. Complete thrombophilia testing was defined as a screen including testing for factor V Leiden, prothrombin gene defect, APLA, anti-thrombin deficiency, protein C, and protein S. Potent thrombophilias were demonstrated in 103/1165 patients (8.84%; 95% CI, 7.34 to 10.61) (Table 2) in the total study population, and 103/976 (10.55%; 95% CI, 9.62-14.47) in patients with at least one thrombophilia test. Conclusion The proportion of unprovoked VTE patients with "potent" thrombophilia is high. Given a high proportion of "potent' thrombophilia patients who likely benefit from indefinite anticoagulation, complete thrombophilia testing appears warranted in patients with unprovoked VTE in whom anticoagulants maybe discontinued. Thrombophilia testing is warranted for a selected group of patients to detect high-risk thrombophilias that could impact anticoagulation management. Table 1. Thrombophilia screening Complete screening 470 (40.3%) No screening 189 (16.2%) At least one thrombophilia test 976 (83.8%) Table 2. Thrombophilia All patients (n=1165) Tested for individual thrombophilia % 95% CI % 95% CI FVL Heterozygous 162/1165 (13.9%) 12.0-16.0% 162/883 (18.4%) 15.9-21.0% FVL Homozygous 4/1165 (0.3%) 0.1-0.9% 4/883 (0.5%) 0.2-1.2% Prothrombin Heterozygous 63/1165 (5.4%) 4.3-6.9% 63/831 (7.6%) 6.0-9.6% Prothrombin Homozygous 1/1165 (0.0%) 0.0-0.5% 1/831 (0.1%) 0.0-0.7% Antithrombin deficiency 10/1165 (0.9%) 0.5-1.6% 10/815 (1.2%) 0.7-2.2% Protein C deficiency 18/1165 (1.6%) 1.0-2.4% 18/639 (2.8%) 1.8-4.4% Protein S deficiency 13/1165 (1.1%) 0.7-1.9% 13/635 (2.1%) 1.2-3.5% Lupus anticoagulant 24/1165 (2.1%) 1.4-3.1% 24/849 (2.8%) 1.9-4.2% Anticardiolipin IgM 16/1165 (1.4%) 0.9-2.2% 16/886 (1.8%) 1.1-2.9% Anticardiolipin IgG 20/1165 (1.7%) 1.1-2.6% 20/885 (2.2%) 1.5-3.5% β-2 microglobulin IgM 10/1165 (0.9%) 0.5-1.6% 10/333 (3.0%) 1.6-5.4% β-2 microglobulin IgG 8/1165 (0.7%) 0.4-1.4% 8/333 (2.4%) 1.2-4.7% Homocysteine 50/1165 (5.7%) 4.3-7.4% 50/668 (7.5%) 5.7-9.7% Factor VIII elevated 11/1165 (0.9%) 0.5-1.7% 11/646 (1.7%) 1.0-3.0% At least one or more of the above 331/1165 (28.4%) 25.9-31.1% 331/976 (33.9%) 31.0-36.9% Potent thrombophilia 103/1165 (8.8%) 7.34-10.6% 103/976 (10.6%) 9.6-14.5% Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».