The Role of Hereditary Thrombophilia Testing in Management of First-Time Pulmonary Embolism

AIM

Hereditary thrombophilia (HT) testing is frequently conducted during the evaluation of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the utility of routine HT testing in this setting is unclear. We sought to assess the association of HT with risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) following first-time PE.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-hospital retrospective study. Two hundred and ninety (290) patients with a first-time PE, who had been tested for HT, completed at least 3 months of therapeutic anticoagulation (AC), subsequently discontinued AC, and were followed for at least 36 months thereafter, were included.

RESULTS

HT was present in 48 of the 290 included patients (17%). Median follow-up after discontinuing AC was 61 months (interquartile range, 43-79 months). The overall recurrence rate of VTE during follow-up was 58 per 290 (20%). A total of 47 of 242 patients (19%) in the HT-absent group had a recurrent VTE, compared with 11 of 48 (22%) in the HT-present group. There was no significant difference in VTE-free survival between groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; the hazard ratio (HR) for VTE recurrence for those with HT compared to those without (HR HT-present: HT-absent) was 1.240 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.614-2.502; p=0.548). On multivariable analysis, HT was not associated with risk of recurrent VTE (HR 1.262; 95% CI 0.640-2.488), and the only variable associated with VTE recurrence was unprovoked PE (HR 2.954; 95% CI 1.64-5.314).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that the presence of HT is not associated with the risk of recurrent VTE following first PE, and support limiting the use of HT testing among patients with first PE.

Do we need more guidance on thrombophilia testing? Challenges and special considerations

INTRODUCTION

Thrombophilia testing (TT) is a laboratory procedure designed to detect the risk factors involved in the pathogenesis of vascular occlusions. The role of TT is also controversial because it has a limited impact on the choice and duration of antithrombotic treatments.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed, by examining MEDLINE up to October 2023. Accepted and not accepted thrombophilia markers are discussed along with the appropriateness or not of prescribing TT in several conditions such as: provoked and unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE), women who are planning a pregnancy whose relatives had VTE or have a hereditary thrombophilia, before assumption of estro-progestins, after multiple pregnant loss, arterial thrombosis, retinal vein occlusion, and splanchnic vein thrombosis.

EXPERT OPINION

TT is not essential in the management of VTE, but it may be useful for limiting adverse events in case of thrombophilia. We expose our criticism of items afforded by other guidelines by presenting our opinion based on both the scientific evidence and clinical practice. We also deal with common mistakes in prescribing and interpretations of TT hoping to purpose an educational approach on this topic. Finally, we emphasize the creation of the expert in hemostasis and thrombosis who should be present in every hospital.

Simultaneous intracoronary, intracardiac, and pulmonary venous thrombosis

Arterial and venous thromboses are very prevalent diseases and it has been discovered that they share some common pathways, but their presentation in young patients is rare and should raise concern for thrombophilia. Therefore, the case is presented of a 34 year-old female with no prior pertinent history and with no predisposing factors. She was diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism, with an incidental finding of a left ventricular thrombus. A coronary artery thrombosis was also found. The patient met the criteria for a thrombophilia work-up, but the authors would like to express their concern on whether these tests are truly necessary, as they would not have change the patient management.

Diagnosis and management of congenital thrombophilia in the era of direct oral anticoagulants

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC)s are often preferred to other anticoagulants as they are more practical and do not require routine laboratory monitoring. Less is known about their use in congenital thrombophilia. Efficacy of DOACs in congenital thrombophilia, effect of DOACs and other anticoagulants on diagnostic tests as well as efficacy and safety of anticoagulant use in this population is still a matter of debate. In this review we intended to analyze the potential pitfalls of testing for thrombophilia in patients using DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKA)s as well as to suggest strategies to improve diagnostic accuracy in this setting. We also reviewed the literature for evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of DOACs in patients with congenital thrombophilia. Some evidence was found supporting the use of DOACs in low risk thrombophilia, although evidence for their use in high risk thrombophilia is limited to small series and case reports. Our findings support the generation of better evidence to support DOAC use for congenital thrombophilia, especially in the high risk subgroups.

Clinical implications of different risk factor profiles in patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis and systemic venous thromboembolism: a population-based study

It is unknown whether the risk factor profile for mesenteric venous thrombosis (MVT) is different from systemic venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of the present population-based study was to compare acquired and inherited risk factors in MVT versus VTE. Identification of all MVT patients at Skåne University Hospital between 2000 and 2015 was performed in patient records and AuriculA (Swedish anticoagulation registry). VTE patients were retrieved from the Malmö Thrombophilia Study (MATS), including 1465 consecutive unselected VTE patients between 1998 and 2008. Patients with MVT (n = 120) were younger (p < 0.001), had higher glomerular filtration rate (p < 0.001), lower smoking rate (p < 0.001), and had less often undergone recent surgery (p = 0.025). The prevalence of solid cancer (19.2% in MVT versus 12.1% in VTE; p = 0.026) and intra-abdominal cancer (16.7% versus 2.3%; p < 0.001) were higher in MVT. The prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation without presence of cancer was lower in MVT compared to VTE (26.6% versus 38.9%; p = 0.031). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the MVT group (9.2% versus 0.6%; p < 0.001), but did not differ at long-term follow-up according to Kaplan–Meier analysis (p = 0.73). Patients with MVT have a higher prevalence of cancer and lower prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation than those with systemic VTE. Intra-abdominal cancer should be excluded in MVT patients, and the high prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation in patients without cancer in both groups suggests that screening for thrombophilia in patients without cancer should be considered in this population for both groups.

Do hospital doctors test for thrombophilia in patients with venous thromboembolism?

The predictive value of factor V Leiden and the G20210A prothrombin mutation regarding recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is limited and does not influence subsequent patient management. Systematic testing for such genetic thrombophilia should be avoided, but to which extent such testing is practiced in a Swiss Hospital is unknown. To examine the current practice of factor V Leiden and/or G20210A prothrombin mutation testing in a University Hospital, and to assess the clinical consequences of testing on patients. 1388 adult patients (48.7% women) with a main diagnosis of VTE hospitalized at the Lausanne university hospital between January 2013 and December 2015. FV Leiden and/or prothrombin G20210A mutation testing was performed in 61 (4.4%) patients with VTE, an average of 20 patients/year. On multivariable analysis, age < 65 years [odds ratio and (95% confidence interval) 5.91 (3.12-11.19)], being admitted in a medical ward [5.71 (2.02-16.16)] and staying in the intensive care unit [0.34 (0.12-0.97)] were associated with thrombophilia testing. No differences were found between patients with and without testing regarding in-hospital mortality [OR and 95% CI for tested vs. non-tested: 0.23 (0.03-1.73), p = 0.153] and length of stay (multivariable adjusted average ± standard error: 16.9 ± 3.3 vs. 20.0 ± 0.7 days for tested and non-tested patients, respectively, p = 0.875). Thrombophilia testing in hospitalized patients with a main diagnosis of VTE is seldom performed. FV Leiden and/or prothrombin G20210A mutation should not be routinely assessed in patients with acute VTE.