Why the study?
Beyond clinical risk factors, the factors causing left atrial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation are not well known.
Do genetic thrombophilia markers and clinical characteristics predict left atrial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Do genetic thrombophilia markers and clinical characteristics predict left atrial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Clinical risk scores and echocardiographic parameters strongly predict left atrial thrombus in atrial fibrillation, while the VWF-V genetic variant may play a role in younger patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Thrombophilia markers may associate with LA thrombus in AF; leaves open their role in risk stratification pending validation.
Left atrial (LA) thrombus formation is the presumed origin of thromboembolic complications in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Beyond clinical risk factors, the factors causing formation of LA thrombi are not well known. In this case-control study, we analyzed clinical characteristics and genetic thrombophilia markers (factor V Leiden (FVL), prothrombin G20210A (FIIV), Tyr2561 variant of von Willebrand factor (VWF-V)) in 42 patients with AF and LA thrombus (LAT) and in 68 control patients with AF without LAT (CTR). Patients with LAT had more clinical conditions predisposing to stroke (mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc-score 3.4 ± 1.5 vs. 1.9 ± 1.4; P < 0.001), a higher LA volume (96 ± 32 vs. 76 ± 21 ml, P = 0.002) and lower LA appendage emptying velocity (0.21 ± 0.11vs. 0.43 ± 0.19 m/s, P < 0.001). Prevalence of FVL, FIIV and VWF-V mutations was not different, but in the subgroup of patients <65 years (y) there was a tendency for a higher incidence of VWF-V with a prevalence of 27% (LAT <65 y) vs. 7% (CTR <65 y, P = 0.066). These findings warrant further investigation of the VWF-V as a risk factor for LA thrombogenesis in younger patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Springer et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: