Dataset Information

Prevalence and geographical variation of Factor V Leiden in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous results regarding the prevalence of Factor V Leiden (FVL) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) varied remarkably. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the potential association between FVL and CVT.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for relevant case-control studies. The data were pooled for analysis of the association between FVL and CVT with a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and the Egger's test.

Results

A total of 39 case-control studies including 1807 cases of CVT and 7699 control cases were included. FVL was more common in patients with CVT (195/1822) than in controls(369/7795), [odds ratio(OR) = 2.70, 95% confidence interval(CI) 2.16-3.38, P < 0.00001]. Results of subgroup analyses indicated that the association between FVL and CVT varied according to geographic regions. The associations between FVL and CVT were significant in studies from Germany (OR = 2.42, 95%CI 1.70-3.45, P < 0.00001), Brazil(OR = 2.82, 95%CI 1.24-6.42, P = 0.01), France (OR = 5.44, 95%CI 1.35-21.92, P = 0.02), Iran (OR = 6.61, 95%CI 1.83-23.93, P = 0.004), and Tunisia (OR = 6.54, 95%CI 2.89-14.82, P < 0.00001), but not in those from Italy (OR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.59-3.78, P = 0.40) or the US (OR = 2.37, 95%CI 0.59-9.42, P = 0.22).

Conclusion

FVL may be more common in patients with CVT. However, the association between FVL and CVT varied depending on the geographic origin of the studies.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6114929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common. Current guidelines suggest that patients with unprovoked VTE should continue anticoagulants unless they have a high bleeding risk, whereas all others can stop. Prediction models may refine this dichotomous distinction, but existing models apply only to patients with unprovoked first thrombosis. We aimed to develop a prediction model for all patients with first VTE, either provoked or unprovoked.Methods and findingsData were used from two population-based cohorts of patients with first VTE from the Netherlands (Multiple Environment and Genetic Assessment of Risk Factors for Venous Thrombosis [MEGA] follow-up study, performed from 1994 to 2009; model derivation; n = 3,750) and from Norway (Tromsø study, performed from 1999 to 2016; model validation; n = 663). Four versions of a VTE prediction model were developed: model A (clinical, laboratory, and genetic variables), model B (clinical variables and fewer laboratory markers), model C (clinical and genetic factors), and model D (clinical variables only). The outcome measure was recurrent VTE. To determine the discriminatory power, Harrell's C-statistic was calculated. A prognostic score was assessed for each patient. Kaplan-Meier plots for the observed recurrence risks were created in quintiles of the prognostic scores. For each patient, the 2-year predicted recurrence risk was calculated. Models C and D were validated in the Tromsø study. During 19,201 person-years of follow-up (median duration 5.7 years) in the MEGA study, 507 recurrences occurred. Model A had the highest predictive capability, with a C-statistic of 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.76). The discriminative performance was somewhat lower in the other models, with C-statistics of 0.72 for model B, 0.70 for model C, and 0.69 for model D. Internal validation showed a minimal degree of optimism bias. Models C and D were externally validated, with C-statistics of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.66) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.66), respectively. According to model C, in 2,592 patients with provoked first events, 367 (15%) patients had a predicted 2-year risk of >10%, whereas in 1,082 patients whose first event was unprovoked, 484 (45%) had a predicted 2-year risk of <10%. A limitation of both cohorts is that laboratory measurements were missing in a substantial proportion of patients, which therefore were imputed.ConclusionsThe prediction model we propose applies to patients with provoked or unprovoked first VTE-except for patients with (a history of) cancer-allows refined risk stratification, and is easily usable. For optimal individualized treatment, a management study in which bleeding risks are also taken into account is necessary.