Cited by 700Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management

Antiphospholipid thrombosis: clinical course after the first thrombotic event in 70 patients

Rosove, Michael H., Brewer, Petronella M. C.·1992·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical course and influence of antithrombotic therapy in patients with lupus anticoagulant or anticardiolipin antibodies, or both, after the first thromboembolic event. DESIGN: Retrospective survey of consecutive patients treated according to their physician's best judgment. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary referral practice. PATIENTS: Seventy patients (48 women [69%]) with a mean age (+/- SD) of 45.5 +/- 17.3 years. The antiphospholipid syndrome was primary in 51 patients (73%) and secondary to systemic lupus erythematosus in 14 patients (20%) and to chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in 5 patients (7%). MEASUREMENTS: Site of initial and recurrent thrombotic events (venous or arterial), as well as kind (aspiring, heparin, or warfarin) and intensity of anticoagulation. RESULTS: Total follow-up after the first thrombotic event was 361.0 patient-years (mean [+/- SD], 5.2 +/- 5.6 years per patient). Thirty-seven patients (53%) had 54 recurrent events, with 2 patients experiencing fatal events. Arterial events were followed by arterial events, and venous events by venous events, in 49 of 54 instances (91%). Recurrence rates during "no treatment;" aspirin therapy; or low-, intermediate-, or high-intensity warfarin therapy (international normalized ratios [INRs] less than or equal to 1.9, 2.0 to 2.9, and greater than or equal to 3.0, respectively, or rabbit brain thromboplastin prothrombin time ratios of approximately less than 1.3, 1.3 to 1.5, and greater than 1.5, respectively) were 0.19, 0.32, 0.57, 0.07 (P = 0.12), and 0.00 (P less than 0.001) per patient-year. The follow-up periods for the five types of therapy were 161.2, 37.8, 11.3, 40.9, and 110.2 patient-years, respectively. The highest INR coincident with thrombosis was 2.6. Five warfarin-treated patients had five significant bleeding events (0.031 per patient-year). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent thrombosis is a potentially serious problem for patients with lupus anticoagulant or anticardiolipin antibodies or both. The site of the first event (arterial or venous) tended to predict the site of subsequent events. Intermediate- to high-intensity warfarin therapy may confer better antithrombotic protection than low- to intermediate-intensity warfarin therapy or aspirin therapy. Further studies are needed to define more precisely the rethrombosis rate and optimal type, intensity, and duration of antithrombotic therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-117-4-303

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and first venous thrombosis, there is no additional benefit of a vitamin K antagonist target INR of 3-4 versus 2-3, based on an RCT and pooled data from five studies that included a majority with venous events.

    “Data from an RCT21 reporting exclusively on patients with venous events and pooled data from five studies that included a majority with venous events21–25 showed no additional benefit of a target INR of 3–4 vs INR of 2–3.”
  • Pooled data from two retrospective studies and two RCTs showed no statistically significant difference in thrombosis recurrences between vitamin K antagonist target INR 3-4 and INR 2-3 (relative risk 0.46 (0.06-3.52)).

    “Pooled data from two retrospective studies and two RCTs21–24 showed that there was no statistically significant difference in thrombosis recurrences between treatment with VKA with a target INR of 3–4 and treatment with INR of 2–3 (relative risk (RR) 0.46 (0.06–3.52)).”
  • The authors' findings do not support prior suggestions that recurrence tends to occur in the same vascular district.

    “Our findings do not confirm the findings of previous studies [23,27] that have suggested that the recurrence of an event is more likely to occur in the same vascular district (i.e.venous or arterial).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 700

Authors
Rosove, M. H., & Brewer, P. M. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1992-08-15
Volume
117
Issue
4
Pages
303-308
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W1980784832
Cited by
700
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 18
FWCI
23.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
antiphospholipid syndrome, lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, recurrent thrombosis, antithrombotic therapy, aspirin, warfarin, anticoagulation intensity, international normalized ratio, thromboprophylaxis, systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic ITP, venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis
MeSH terms
Aged, Aspirin, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heparin, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Thrombosis, Warfarin, Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic, Antiphospholipid Syndrome

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