Cited by 111Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis

Risk of first venous thromboembolism in pregnant women in hospital: Population based cohort study from England

Open access
Abdul Sultan, A., West, J., Tata, L. J., Fleming, K. M., Nelson-Piercy, C., Grainge, M. J.·2013·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential for preventing venous thromboembolism during and after antepartum hospital admissions in pregnant women. DESIGN: Cohort study using linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary (Hospital Episode Statistics) care records. SETTING: Primary and secondary care centres, England. PARTICIPANTS: 206,785 women aged 15-44 who had one or more pregnancies from 1997 up to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Risk of first venous thromboembolism in pregnant women admitted to hospital for one or more days for reasons other than delivery or venous thromboembolism. Risk was assessed by calculating the absolute rate of venous thromboembolism and comparing these rates with those observed during follow-up time not associated with hospital admission using a Poisson regression model to estimate incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Admission to hospital in pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (absolute rate 1752/100,000 person years; incidence rate ratio 17.5, 95% confidence interval 7.69 to 40.0) compared with time outside hospital. The rate of venous thromboembolism was also high during the 28 days after discharge (absolute rate 676; 6.27, 3.74 to 10.5). The rate during and after admission combined was highest in the third trimester (961; 5.57, 3.32 to 9.34) and in those aged ≥ 35 years (1756; 21.7, 9.62 to 49.0). While the absolute rate in the combined period was highest for those with three or more days in hospital (1511; 12.2, 6.65 to 22.7), there was also a fourfold increase (558; 4.05, 2.23 to 7.38) in the risk of venous thromboembolism for those admitted to hospital for less than three days. CONCLUSION: The overall risk of first venous thromboembolism in pregnant women increased during admissions to hospital not related to delivery, and remained significantly higher in the 28 days after discharge. During these periods need for thromboprophylaxis should receive careful consideration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.f6099

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [13]Eaton SC, Williams TJ, Puri S, VanStaa T. The feasibility of linking the English Hospital Episode Statistics to the GPRD. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: S214.
  2. [14]Crooks C. Epidemiology of upper gastrointestinal bleeding studying its causes and outcomes using case control studies and surivival analyses. [PhD thesis]. University of Nottingham 2013.
  3. [20]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diabtes in pregnancy: Management of diabetes and its complication from pre-conception to postnatal period. RCOG Press, 2008.
  4. [24]Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist. The acute management of thrombosis and embolism during pregnancy and puerperium. Green-top guideline No. 37b. RCOG Press, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdul Sultan, A., West, J., Tata, L. J., Fleming, K. M., Nelson-Piercy, C., & Grainge, M. J.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-11-07
Volume
347
Issue
nov07 15
Pages
f6099-f6099
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102714729
Cited by
111
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Aga Khan Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Keywords
venous thromboembolism, pregnancy, thromboprophylaxis, postpartum period, thrombosis risk, third trimester, maternal age, length of hospital stay, England, Hospital Episode Statistics, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, incidence rate ratio
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, England, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Venous Thromboembolism, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review