4.6 Article

Elevated plasma fibronectin levels associated with venous thromboembolism

Journal

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
Volume 100, Issue 2, Pages 224-228

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1160/TH08-02-0078

Keywords

fibronectin; venous thromboembolism; thrombosis

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL-21544]
  2. NIH-GCRC [M0100833]
  3. The Scripps Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Elevated plasma fibronectin levels occur in various clinical states including arterial disease. Increasing evidence suggests that atherothrombosis and venous thromboembolism (VTE) share common risk factors. To assess the hypothesis that high plasma fibronectin levels are associated with VTE, we compared plasma fibronectin levels in the Scripps Venous Thrombosis Registry for 113 VTE cases vs. age and sex matched controls. VTE cases had significantly higher mean fibronectin concentration compared to controls (127% vs. 103%, p < 0.0001); the difference was greater for idiopathic VTE cases compared to secondary VTE cases (133% vs. 120%, respectively). Using a cut-off of > 90% of the control values, the odds ratio (OR) for association of VTE for fibronectin plasma levels above the 90,h percentile were 9.37 (95% CI 2.73-32.2; p < 0.001) and this OR remained significant after adjustment for sex, age, body mass index (BMI), factor V Leiden and prothrombin nt20210A (OR 7.60,95% CI 2.14-27.0; p=0.002). In particular, the OR was statistically significant for idiopathic VTE before and after these statistical adjustments. For the total male cohort, the OR was significant before and after statistical adjustments and was not significant for the total female cohort. In summary, our results suggest that elevated plasma fibronectin levels are associated with VTE especially in males, and extend the potential association between biomarkers and risk factors for arterial atherothrombosis and VTE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available