SynthesisEuropean heart journal2017
Statins and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: pooled analysis of published observational cohort studies.
Synthesis in European heart journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Statins for adults with a first episode of venous thromboembolic disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- The Effect of PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9) Inhibition on the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism.Circulation · 2020Pooled it
- Serum C-reactive protein increases the risk of venous thromboembolism: a prospective study and meta-analysis of published prospective evidence.European journal of epidemiology · 2017Pooled it
- Burden of Atherosclerosis and Outcomes of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Hokusai-VTE Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- Rosuvastatin use reduces thrombin generation potential in patients with venous thromboembolism: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2019Trial
- Brain, benefit, or burden? Revisiting statins and cognitive function in older adults.GeroScience · 2026Review
- Characteristics and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism among patients with polyvascular, single-vascular or no atherosclerotic disease: insights from RIETE.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Serum MPO-DNA for Predicting the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism and the Effect of Statins in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes Associated with Statin Use in Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The impact of statins on pulmonary embolism severity-a retrospective data analysis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Review
- Statins use and recurrent venous thromboembolism in the direct oral anticoagulant era: insight from the COMMAND VTE Registry-2.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Statins during Anticoagulation for Emergency Life-Threatening Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- PCSK9 Monoclonal Antibodies: New Developments and Their Relevance in a Nucleic Acid-Based Therapy Era.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2022Review
- Venous Thromboembolism for the Practicing Cardiologist.Cardiology clinics · 2021Review
- Article
- Differential effect of statin use on coagulation markers: an active comparative analysis in the NEO study.Thrombosis journal · 2021Article
- Antithrombotics and new interventions for venous thromboembolism: Exploring possibilities beyond factor IIa and factor Xa inhibition.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in obese patients with acute venous thromboembolism: analysis of electronic health record data.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
- Associations of myocardial bridging with adverse cardiac events: a meta-analysis of published observational cohort studies involving 4,556 individuals.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThere have been suggestions that statins may have a potential role in secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) [which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)], but the evidence is inconsistent. We aimed to evaluate the association between statin use and risk of recurrent VTE. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies. All relevant studies which reported associations between statin use and recurrent VTE outcomes were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and manual search of bibliographies from inception to January 2017. Study specific relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were aggregated using random effects models. Eight eligible studies comprising of 103 576 participants and 13 168 recurrent VTE outcomes were included in the pooled analysis. In pooled analysis of 7 studies, the RR for recurrent VTE was 0.73 (0.68-0.79) when comparing statin use with no use. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between contributing studies (I2=0%, 0-71%; P = 0.93). The RRs for recurrent PE (three studies) and DVT (two studies) comparing statin use with no statin use were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.58-0.96) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.60-0.71) respectively.
conclusionAvailable evidence from observational cohort studies suggests a beneficial effect of statin use on VTE recurrence. Well-designed intervention studies are needed to corroborate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.