Thrombophilia - Diagnosis

Diagnosis

Tests for thrombophilia include complete blood count (with examination of the blood film), prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time and reptilase time, lupus anticoagulant, anti-cardiolipin antibody, anti-β2 glycoprotein 1 antibody, activated protein C resistance, fibrinogen tests, factor V Leiden and prothrombin mutation, and basal homocysteine levels. Testing may be more or less extensive depending on clinical judgement and abnormalities detected on initial evaluation.

There are divergent views as to whether everyone with an unprovoked episode of thrombosis should be investigated for thrombophilia. Even those with a form of thrombophilia may not necessarily be at risk of further thrombosis, while recurrent thrombosis is more likely in those who have had previous thrombosis even in those who have no detectable thrombophilic abnormalities. Recurrent thromboembolism, or thrombosis in unusual sites (e.g. the hepatic vein in Budd-Chiari syndrome), is a generally accepted indication for screening. It is more likely to be cost-effective in people with a strong personal or family history of thrombosis. In contrast, the combination of thrombophilia with other risk factors may provide an indication for preventative treatment, which is why thrombophilia testing may be performed even in those who would not meet the strict criteria for these tests. Searching for a coagulation abnormality is not normally undertaken in patients in whom thrombosis has an obvious trigger. For example, if the thrombosis is due to immobilization after recent orthopedic surgery, it is regarded as "provoked" by the immobilization and the surgery, and it is less likely that investigations will yield clinically important results.

In the United Kingdom, professional guidelines give specific indications for thrombophilia testing. It is recommended that testing be done only after appropriate counseling, and hence the investigations are usually not performed at the time when thrombosis is diagnosed but at a later time. In particular situations, such as retinal vein thrombosis, testing is discouraged altogether because thrombophilia is not regarded as a major risk factor. In other rare conditions generally linked with hypercoagulability, such as cerebral venous thrombosis and portal vein thrombosis, there is insufficient data to state for certain whether thrombophilia screening is helpful, and decisions on thrombophilia screening in these conditions are therefore not regarded as evidence-based. If cost-effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years in return for expenditure) is taken as a guide, it is generally unclear whether thrombophilia investigations justify the often high cost, unless the testing is restricted to selected situations.

Recurrent miscarriage is an indication for thrombophilia screening, particularly antiphospholipid antibodies (anti-cardiolipin IgG and IgM, as well as lupus anticoagulant), factor V Leiden and prothrombin mutation, activated protein C resistance and a general assessment of coagulation through an investigation known as thromboelastography.

Women who are planning to use oral contraceptives do not benefit from routine screening for thrombophilias, as the absolute risk of thrombotic events is low. If either the woman or a first-degree relative has suffered from thrombosis, the risk of developing thrombosis is increased. Screening this selected group may be beneficial, but even when negative may still indicate residual risk. Professional guidelines therefore suggest that alternative forms of contraception be used rather than relying on screening.

Thrombophilia screening in people with arterial thrombosis is generally regarded unrewarding and is generally discouraged, except possibly for unusually young patients (especially when precipitated by smoking or use of estrogen-containing hormonal contraceptives) and those in whom revascularization, such as coronary arterial bypass, fails because of rapid occlusion of the graft.