Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Different risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in carriers with factor V Leiden compared with non-carriers, but not in other thrombophilic defects. Results from a large retrospective family cohort study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The term factor V Leiden (FVL) paradox is used to describe the different risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism that has been found in carriers of FVL. In a thrombophilic family-cohort, we estimated differences in absolute risks of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism for various thrombophilic defects. Of 2,054 relatives, 1,131 were female, 41 had pulmonary embolism and 126 deep vein thrombosis. Annual incidence for deep vein thrombosis in non-carriers of FVL was 0.19% (95%CI, 0.16-0.23), and 0.41% (95%Cl, 0.28-0.58) in carriers; relative risk (RR) 2.1 (95%CI, 1.4-3.2). For pulmonary embolism these incidences were similar in carriers and non-carriers 0.07%, respectively; RR 1.0 (95% CI, 0.4-2.5). When co-inheritance of other thrombophilic defects was excluded the RR for deep vein thrombosis in FVL carriers was 7.0 (95%Cl, 2.3-21.7) compared to non-carriers and 2.8 (95%CI, 0.5-14.4) for pulmonary embolism. For other thrombophilic defects no such effect was observed. Thus the FVL paradox was confirmed in our study. However, a similar paradox in carriers of other thrombophilic defects was not observed
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1030-1033
JournalHaematologica
Volume95
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Different risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in carriers with factor V Leiden compared with non-carriers, but not in other thrombophilic defects. Results from a large retrospective family cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this