MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Postpartum Venous Thromboembolic Events Among Carriers of Factor V Leiden and/or Prothrombin Gene Variant: A Cohort Study and Updated Systematic Review. Is Prophylaxis Really Required?

2012· article· en· W2552802489 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Louise Dunbar Takach Lapner, Grégoire Le Gal, Geneviève Le Templier, Mark Walker, Graeme N. Smith, Philip S. Wells, Tim Ramsay, Nicole Langlois, Nancy Carson, Shi Wu Wen, Marc Rodger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFactor V LeidenPregnancyObstetricsPostpartum periodCohort studyProspective cohort studyThrombophiliaGynecologyVenous thrombosisInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1142 Background Pregnancy is associated with a hypercoagulable state, with the highest risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurring during the postpartum period. This risk is further increased by the presence of inherited thrombophilic states, including Factor V Leiden (FVL) or the prothrombin gene variant (PGV), such that many clinicians provide routine postpartum thromboprophylaxis for this group. Publications examining the absolute incidence of pregnancy associated VTE in carriers of FVL and PGV report a rate of only 0–1% over the combined antepartum and 6–12 week postpartum periods. However, given that at least 50% of pregnancy associated VTE occur postpartum, the daily risk of VTE may be sufficiently high to warrant thromboprophylaxis during this period. Objectives Methods We performed a substudy analysis of the prospective Ottawa and Kingston (OaK) birth cohort study, in which women presenting for routine antenatal care were followed throughout pregnancy until delivery. Genotyping for FVL and PGV by polymerase chain reaction was performed for all participants after completion of the postpartum period. 336 women who enrolled through the participating Ottawa hospitals and identified as FVL or PGV positive were eligible for the current analysis. Data relating to the occurrence of VTE during the 6-week post partum period were obtained for 201/336 women through medical record review or direct contact by a study investigator. The main outcome measure was the proportion of objectively confirmed VTE within 6 weeks of delivery among participants with heterozygous FVL or PGV. Eligible articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE database. Inclusion criteria included a) prospective cohort design of women completing pregnancy during the study period; b) assessment of all participants for FVL and/or PGV; c) observation of participants throughout the postpartum period; d) report of objectively confirmed VTE during the postpartum period. Studies limited to women with previous pregnancy complications or previous VTE were excluded. The pooled proportion of postpartum VTE was calculated from combination of reported postpartum VTE rates and the current study results. Results No postpartum VTE occurred among the 188 participants heterozygous for FVL or PGV alone. The proportion of VTE among the population with isolated heterozygous FVL and/or PGV was 0% (95% CI 0 to 2.0). One postpartum event was documented in a heterozygous PGV carrier with coexisting protein C deficiency. No events were documented among 12 women with homozygous or compound heterozygous defects. Superficial vein thrombosis was diagnosed in two carriers of FVL. Ten publications examining the rate of postpartum VTE among FVL or PGV carriers were identified in the systematic review. (Table 1) The pooled proportion of postpartum VTE among those who did not receive postpartum prophylaxis was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2 to 1.3) for heterozygous carriers of FVL and 0% (95% CI 0 to 1.6) for PGV heterozygotes. Conclusion The absolute risk of VTE among asymptomatic carriers of FVL or PGV appears sufficiently low to withhold postpartum prophylaxis. Disclosures: Ramsay: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada: Research Funding; Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding. Rodger:Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada: Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→