Contemporary Challenges in Venous Thromboembolism: Evolving Populations and Implications for Management and Risk Stratification.

1. Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), represents a significant disease burden globally, affecting nearly 10 million individuals annually [ 1 ]. VTE not only imposes significant morbidity and mortality risk on patients but also substantial economic burden on healthcare systems, driven by hospitalisation and hospital acquired events [ 2 , 3 ]. The incidence of VTE only continues to increase over time. This trend has been commonly attributed to demographic shifts with an ageing population, rising prevalence of traditional risk factors such as obesity and malignancy and heightened diagnostic vigilance [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Emerging risk factors, including new cancer therapies [ 7 , 8 ] and a growing transgender population on hormonal therapy [ 9 ], have further contributed to the evolving landscape of VTE risk.

The growing burden of VTE has driven the continuous advancement in treatment strategies. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) revolutionized the treatment of VTE at their introduction, providing an option that was non-inferior, and with lower bleeding risk compared to vitamin K antagonists [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. However, with increasingly complex patient populations, there remains residual bleeding risk even with DOAC therapy which warrants optimisation, particularly given long term usage. DOACs also have important limitations in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with restricted use at more advanced stages of renal impairment as well as limited availability of readily reversible agents. These limitations have led to an ongoing search for alternate treatment strategies. Factors XI (FXI) and XII (FXII) have emerged as new targets with the potential to dissociate bleeding risk from anticoagulant efficacy [ 15 , 16 ]. Additionally, the development of interventional strategies for treatment of VTE has provided additional options for select patient groups [ 17 , 18 ]. Care pathways are also evolving alongside our treatment options, allowing for the management of patients in an outpatient setting [ 19 ].

Despite the progress made in the management of VTE, risk prognostication has not advanced in parallel. Many risk assessment models rely heavily on clinical criteria or have limited incorporation of biomarkers [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Furthermore, these tools were developed in historical cohorts and may not reflect contemporary VTE patients, who are older, have more co-morbidities, and are increasingly managed with DOACs rather than warfarin, or are on newer therapies unaccounted for in the models, underlining the need to revise existing models and develop new tools. Current tools also have limited ability to capture dynamic risk, often relying on baseline variables. These limitations highlight the need to update existing models to incorporate contemporary treatments, more diverse patient populations and novel biomarkers, potentially supported by machine learning approaches to improve individualised risk prediction in VTE.

In this narrative review, we will explore the evolving VTE epidemiology, emerging therapies and advances in risk stratification, while highlighting future directions in management.

2. Methodology

A comprehensive narrative literature search was conducted to identify studies for VTE epidemiology, therapeutic strategies and risk stratification. Electronic databases (including PubMed and Embase) and grey literature sources such as Google Scholar were searched up to 29 January 2026. Supplementary Table S1 shows the database search strategy. Boolean operators were used to combine concepts, and results were restricted to human studies published in English. Reference lists of relevant articles were screened to identify additional studies. Selected studies were representative of the overall literature and chosen to illustrate key concepts and trends.

3. Epidemiology—Trends and Emerging Risks

3.1. Rising VTE Incidence

VTE incidence increases with age, with rates markedly higher in those 70 years and older [ 4 , 23 ]. Worryingly, the global population continues to age, with a projected doubling of those aged 65 years or older within the next 30 years [ 24 , 25 ]. Incidence also differs with sex, with women having a slightly higher lifetime risk compared to men; however, this varies with age, with higher incidence observed in women under 45 years and over 80 years old [ 23 , 26 ]. However, VTE incidence appears to be increasing over time, independent of age and sex. The Tromsø study of 27,000 Norwegians demonstrated a 27% increase in VTE over 16 years when adjusted for age [ 6 ]. The Worcester VTE study revealed similar findings, with a 25.5% increase between 2001–2009, independent of age and sex [ 27 ]. These findings highlight that a substantial proportion of VTE risk is driven by acquired and potentially modifiable factors. Notably, the rise in VTE has occurred concomitantly with an increasingly multimorbid global population [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. As such, patients are not only increased risk of VTE, but may also carry comorbidities that limit and complicate treatment.

3.2. Cancer

Cancer is a key comorbidity that has been associated with the rising burden of VTE globally. In a large cohort study of almost 4 million patients in the United States, the incidence of cancer was demonstrated to be increasing over successive generations [ 31 ]. Similar patterns have been demonstrated at a global level, with an overall rise in case numbers across 200 countries between 1990–2021 [ 32 ]. Analyses of the Cancer Observatory database predict a 77% increase in cancer cases between 2022–2050, with a projected 12% increase in young adult and adolescent cases [ 33 , 34 ]. Consistent with the rising cancer incidence, cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) has also increased. In a review of Danish medical records, the 12-month incidence of VTE following cancer diagnosis significantly increased from 1.0% in 1997 to 3.4% in 2017 [ 35 ]. Similar findings were highlighted in analysis of the California Cancer Registry, where the cumulative incidence of VTE rose across a range of malignancies between 2014–2017 compared to 2005–2007 [ 36 ]. Both studies concluded this increase in CAT was a combination of improved survival rates, in addition to more intensive surveillance, with Mulder et al. observing a 10-fold increase in computed tomography (CT) scans [ 35 ].

In addition to cancer itself, cancer therapies have also been associated with increased VTE risk. Longstanding treatments, such as immunomodulatory agents for multiple myeloma and hormonal therapies for breast cancer have previously been associated with increased VTE risk [ 37 , 38 ]. Newer therapies have also been implicated as independent risk factors for VTE. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now widely incorporated into treatment regimens for a number of solid organ malignancies. While immune-related adverse events are known complications, emerging evidence suggests that these agents may also increase VTE risk. In a recent retrospective cohort study of over 10,000 patients with cancer receiving ICI [ 7 ], the 1-year cumulative incidence of VTE was 11.1%. The authors noted that VTE risk varied with ICI class, independent of cancer type or stage. An earlier study by Roopkumar et al. found a similar 1-year cumulative incidence of nearly 11% in ICI treated patients [ 39 ].

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is another recent advancement in cancer treatment. Used in a number of B-cell lymphomas, B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and multiple myeloma, emerging evidence suggests a possible link to VTE. A meta-analysis conducted on 47 studies with a total of 7040 patients identified that thrombotic risk appeared highest in the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion (2.4% vs. 0.1% after 6 months), independent of CAR-T target, underlying malignancy or rates of cytokine release syndrome [ 40 ]. Conversely, a review of nine Phase 2 and Phase 3 CAR-T studies failed to demonstrate an associated VTE risk, with only four VTE events reported across these studies [ 41 ]. As novel cancer therapies become more commonplace, consideration and stratification of these therapies’ contribution to CAT risk will become increasingly important.

3.3. Obesity

Between 1990 and 2021, the prevalence of elevated body mass index (BMI) has increased by over 50% in both men and women and is projected to continue rising [ 42 ]. Elevated BMI is a well described risk factor for VTE. This association may be mediated by increased levels of tissue factor (TF) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), leading to coagulation cascade activation and reduced fibrinolysis, promoting a prothrombotic state [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. In a meta-analysis of six studies investigating the influence of BMI on VTE risk, obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m 2 ) was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.00 (95% CI 1.72–2.32), though there was significant heterogeneity between studies [ 46 ]. In another study of the Tromsø population, weight gain ≥ 7.5 kg was associated with increased VTE risk (HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.38–2.68), which was further amplified by baseline obesity (HR 3.75; 95% CI 1.83–7.68) [ 47 ]. Despite this established association, obesity remains a relatively underappreciated VTE risk factor in long-term VTE management, highlighting the need for greater consideration in clinical practice.

3.4. New Considerations

In addition to traditional VTE risk factors, emerging influences are increasingly recognised as important contributors to VTE epidemiology. With increasing awareness and acceptance of gender diversity, attention has turned to the impact of gender affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT) on VTE risk in the transgender population. A recent meta-analysis found a two-fold increase in VTE risk in transgender women compared to both cisgender men and women (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.93–2.57, p < 0.001) [ 9 ]. Conversely, there was no difference in risk in transgender men compared to ciswomen. In contrast to conventional oestrogen therapy, the VTE risk appears to increase with the duration of GAHT [ 48 ]. The optimal management and risk stratification of this cohort, however, remains uncertain.

Outside of individual clinical factors, social and environmental determinants also influence VTE risk. Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been found to be an independent risk factor for VTE. Kort et al. demonstrated higher SES neighbourhoods had lower VTE incidence, though were unable to adjust for confounding factors such as pregnancy or obesity [ 49 ]. A later Danish study yielded similar findings, with risk persisting after adjusting for confounders, including obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease and recent surgery (OR 0.61 vs. low SES score; 95% CI 0.59–0.63) [ 50 ]. This would indicate that VTE risk may be influenced by social determinants of health, beyond traditional clinical risk factors. Environmental exposures may further modify risk. Air pollution has been recognised as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and more recently, there is emerging literature suggesting an association to VTE, through prothrombotic and proinflammatory pathways [ 51 ]. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) reported increased risk of VTE (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.04–1.86) with higher average of air pollution indices [ 52 ]. However, Woller et al. found little evidence for short-term air pollution [ 53 ]. While the current literature examining the SES and environmental effect is scarce, it highlights the need to consider socioenvironmental factors when assessing risk and management of VTE.

Together, the evolution of known VTE risk factors and emergence of novel considerations highlight the complexity and heterogeneity of the at-risk population. Consequently, standard anticoagulant therapy is unlikely to be appropriate for all patients. Current risk stratification models, derived from historical cohorts, now likely underestimate risk profiles, underscoring the need to modernise these assessments to more accurately assess the contemporary population.

4. Treatment—Present Approaches and Future Considerations

4.1. The DOAC Era—Current Practices and Unresolved Issues

The introduction of DOACs over a decade ago transformed the treatment of VTE. Now the mainstream treatment, DOACs offers a number of advantages over vitamin K antagonists, including the ease of administration and more predictable pharmacokinetics, fewer drug interactions and no requirements for routine monitoring [ 54 ]. Landmark trials have consistently demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and reduced rates of bleeding compared with warfarin [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Real-world data continues to support the benefit of DOACs, with large retrospective cohort studies showing consistent reduction in recurrent VTE without increased bleeding, including patients excluded from initial trials, such as those with active cancer, antecedent surgery or trauma [ 55 , 56 ]. Similar findings have been shown in extended treatment and prophylaxis with DOACs. In the cohort study conducted by Fang et al., patients treated beyond 6 months with DOAC were found to have lower rates of recurrence (adjusted HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52–0.82) with similar bleeding rates to warfarin (adjusted HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.54–1.17) [ 57 ]. Similar findings were demonstrated in the analysis by Lui et al., where additional sub-analysis of first unprovoked VTE identified significantly reduced recurrence (HR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.10–0.90, p = 0.03) but similar bleeding rates (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22–1.28, p = 0.158) on DOAC prophylaxis [ 58 ].

While DOACs are now widely recommended and utilised in patient cohorts initially excluded from trials, such as cancer-associated VTE [ 59 ] and obesity [ 60 ], caveats and evidence gaps remain. VTE prophylaxis is often underused in high-risk cancer patients, particularly those with gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancers, thrombocytopenia or renal impairment. Risk assessment tools such as the Khorana score have limited precision in contemporary oncology, as they do not account for newer therapies like ICIs or incorporate modern biomarkers. Clinicians therefore must balance evolving therapy-related thrombotic risks against bleeding risks, leading to inconsistent use of prophylaxis in practice.

The same fundamental challenge of balancing bleeding and thrombotic risk exists for therapeutic anticoagulation, especially with respect to optimal treatment duration. Current guidelines recommend long-term anticoagulation after a first unprovoked VTE in patients with low bleeding risk, largely based on a reported recurrence rate of 30% within five years of the event [ 61 , 62 , 63 ]. Comparatively, indefinite anticoagulation for unprovoked VTE was approached more cautiously during the warfarin era, due to bleeding risk and burden of therapy leading to treatment cessation [ 64 ]. This remains an area of clinical equipoise: up to 70% of patients receiving anticoagulation may not have a further event, exposing low-risk individuals to bleeding risk, up to approximately 1–2% [ 65 ]. One meta-analysis demonstrated increased clinically relevant non-major bleeding with extended anticoagulation [ 66 ]. This highlights the need for careful selection of patients who genuinely benefit from long-term anticoagulation.

Importantly, this uncertainty is not limited to unprovoked VTE. For provoked VTE, international guideline consensus suggests a limited course of anticoagulation for 3 months [ 61 , 67 ]. However, in the recently published HI-PRO study, patients with provoked VTE treated with prophylactic apixaban for 12 months had reduced VTE recurrence compared to those who received a limited 3-month course of anticoagulation (HR 2.68, 95% CI 0.96–7.43, p = 0.06) [ 68 ]. Notably, several provoking factors that were included could be considered minimally provoking, such as blood transfusions and exacerbation of chronic medical conditions. Furthermore, patients included in this study had at least one persistent VTE risk factor, such as chronic disease and obesity. While it may be debatable whether all cases were truly transiently provoked, the study highlights the heterogeneous definitions of provoking factors, as well as the need to consider the contribution from other non-traditional factors. The heterogeneity and variable potency of provoking factors, grouped under broad categories in current guidelines, leads to oversimplification. For example, recurrence after travel-provoked VTE appears similar to unprovoked VTE, suggesting that some transiently provoked events may reflect underlying thrombotic predisposition [ 69 ]. Together, these observations highlight that current guidelines may not fully capture the real-world complexities of “provoked” VTE, underscoring the urgent need for more nuanced risk stratification strategies.

Another area of uncertainty concerns patients with obesity. While ISTH guidance supports rivaroxaban and apixaban for obese patients regardless of body weight and BMI [ 60 ], there was significant heterogeneity and paucity of data at extremes of weight (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m 2 and weight > 150 kg), as most studies classified “high weight” as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 and weight > 120 kg. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest altered drug exposure with increasing weight for apixaban and dabigatran, with little impact on rivaroxaban [ 70 , 71 , 72 ]. However, the clinical significance of this is unclear, and no DOAC has a clinically validated therapeutic range. Evidence is particularly limited for high-risk groups, such as patients after bariatric surgery, where available data are restricted to small studies and case reports with mixed findings [ 73 , 74 ]. Importantly, there is a lack of prospective randomised trials and long-term data to evaluate DOAC performance in patients with extremes of weight. Taken together, these limitations support cautious interpretation of current recommendations and underscore the need for well-designed trials for under-studied, high-risk populations.

4.2. Beyond DOACs–Novel Factor Inhibitors

Although DOACs have similar or lower bleeding risk compared to warfarin for VTE treatment, the annual bleeding rate of approximately 1% remains concerning. This apprehension is particularly evident in high-risk cohorts, such as advanced renal disease, where there are discordant opinions between regulatory bodies as to what is considered “safe”. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of apixaban in end-stage renal failure and haemodialysis based on pharmacokinetic data, whereas the European Medicines Agency is more conservative, recommending against its use in this cohort [ 75 , 76 ]. Compounding this concern, reversal agents for DOACs are limited. Andexanet alfa, a recently introduced reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors, is not readily available, expensive, and associated with thrombotic risk of up to 10% [ 77 ]. Notably, andexanet alfa was withdrawn from the United States market in late 2025, following FDA concerns that thromboembolic risks outweigh benefits [ 78 ]. Its future use remains uncertain, though similar recommendations have yet to be made worldwide. As such, these limitations highlight the need for safer anticoagulation strategies and more accessible, effective reversal agents in high bleeding risk patients.

FXI has emerged as a target for anticoagulant therapy, based on observations in congenital FXI deficiency patients, who rarely experiencing spontaneous bleeding and have reduced VTE incidence [ 79 , 80 , 81 ]. Several FXI inhibitors are currently in early phase clinical trials. In haemodialysis patients, early signals would suggest no increased bleeding risk, though larger studies are required to assess their efficacy [ 82 ]. FXI inhibitors have also been explored as VTE prophylaxis for patients undergoing total knee replacement, with phase II trials demonstrating non-inferior, if not superior, reduction in VTE compared to enoxaparin [ 83 ]. However, larger trials have produced mixed signals. The Phase III ASTER ( NCT05171049 ) trial comparing abelacimab to apixaban in CAT was terminated early after interim analysis, though results have not yet been formally released [ 84 ]. This decision was also extended to the MAGNOLIA ( NCT05171075 ) trial, which compared abelacimab to dalteparin for CAT in gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, due to strategic and operational considerations [ 85 ]. In contrast, the AZALEA-TIMI 71 trial conducted in patients with moderate-to-high risk of stroke was stopped early due to a greater than anticipated reduction in bleeding events with abelacimab [ 86 ]. A summary of FXI inhibitor trials for VTE prevention and treatment is shown in Table 1 . FXII and factor XIII (FXIII) have also been examined as potential therapeutic targets. FXII inhibitors have largely been investigated in murine models, demonstrating reduced thrombotic events, while FXIII inhibitors have yet to enter clinical development [ 87 ].

Overall, the current evidence base for these novel inhibitors remains early and largely focused on prophylaxis. Their efficacy and safety for treatment of VTE remain uncertain. Real-world data are absent, and long-term safety has not been established. If these novel agents prove safe and effective in high-risk patients with multimorbidity, including advanced CKD, they could represent a major advance. They would provide a much-needed therapeutic option in patients where DOACs are limited by renal clearance and heightened bleeding risk.

4.3. Endovascular Approaches

While anticoagulation remains the mainstay of treatment for VTE, an important limitation is the inability to rapidly remove existing thrombus. Anticoagulants prevent further clot propagation but do not acutely reduce clot burden, and may not avert complications such as haemodynamic instability in PE or post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in iliofemoral DVT. These limitations have driven growing interest in interventional therapies in select patient populations where rapid clot debulking may improve clinical outcomes.

For PE, current guidelines suggest anticoagulant therapy is adequate for low-risk patients, while systemic thrombolysis is indicated for unstable high-risk patients [ 88 ]. In contrast, the optimal management of intermediate-risk PE remains unclear. Mortality risk associated with this subgroup has been reported to be as high as 3–15%, with up to 38% risk of deterioration [ 89 , 90 ]. Although systemic thrombolysis can reduce early haemodynamic compromise, the substantial risk of major bleeding, particularly intracranial haemorrhage, precludes its routine use in intermediate-high risk PE [ 91 , 92 ]. This highlights the need to refine risk stratification to better identify patients at highest risk of deterioration who may benefit from additional intervention, without concurrent excessive treatment-related harm.

Large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT), a minimally invasive endovascular procedure that allows aspiration of thrombus without thrombolytics, has emerged as a potential therapy for intermediate-risk PE. The benefit of LBMT is derived from rapid haemodynamic improvement, in part due to resolution of pulmonary hypertension and right heart strain [ 93 ]. In the PEERLESS trial, conducted predominantly in intermediate-high risk patients, LBMT was superior to catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) with a lower composite primary end point (win ratio 5.01; 95% CI 3.68–6.97, p < 0.001) and significantly lower rates of clinical deterioration, need for bailout therapy, ICU utilisation and length of stay [ 17 ]. Rates of intracranial and major bleeding were comparable between the groups, though high bleeding risk patients were excluded, likely underestimating complications. Similarly, the recent STORM-PE trial evaluated computer-assisted vacuum thrombectomy with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone in intermediate-high risk PE, reporting superior reduction in RV/LV ratio with comparable major adverse events within 7 days [ 94 ]. Building on PEERLESS, the active PEERLESS II trial is comparing LBMT to anticoagulation alone in the intermediate risk cohort [ 95 ], while the HI-PEITHO and PE-TRACT studies are concurrently investigating CDT in intermediate-risk PE [ 96 , 97 ]. These studies may redefine the optimal management of intermediate-risk PE, though current evidence is limited by selective enrolment and short-term surrogate outcomes, with lack of data on chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Consequently, the extent to which endovascular interventions improve clinically meaningful outcomes, and how they should be integrated into routine care for intermediate-risk PE, remains uncertain. At present, their applicability appears limited to intermediate-high risk patients with haemodynamic or right ventricular compromise, risk of further deterioration or failure of anticoagulation.

Interventional approaches for DVT have also been controversial, with mixed efficacy and safety findings. Management of iliofemoral DVT has been of particular interest, with up to 50% of patients developing PTS [ 98 ], and nearly a twofold risk compared to those without iliac vein involvement when managed with anticoagulation alone [ 99 ]. The CaVenT trial was one of the first major trials to examine the efficacy of CDT in addition to anticoagulation in iliofemoral DVT. At 6 months follow up, iliofemoral patency was improved compared to anticoagulation alone, with absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 28.2% (95% CI 9.7–46.7; p = 0.004) [ 99 ]. However, despite a significant reduction in PTS at 5 years, there was no improvement in quality of life [ 100 ]. Subsequent studies have demonstrated mixed results; findings are summarised in Table 2 . In the ATTRACT trial, while rates of moderate/severe PTS in the iliofemoral cohort were reduced, the overall PTS rate was not, and more major bleeding events were observed within 10 days [ 101 ]. Similarly, the CAVA trial reported no reduction in PTS, with more recurrent DVT events due to in-stent thrombosis in the intervention arm [ 102 ]. Long-term follow-up, however, showed reduction in PTS, albeit using ISTH PTS criteria as compared to Villalta score in the original study, with significant reduction only in mild PTS [ 103 ].

Significant heterogeneity exists between the three trials due to clinical and methodological differences, which likely explains the variability across the studies. For instance, the inclusion of femoropopliteal DVT in the ATTRACT study may have diluted treatment effects. Sub-analyses found reduced PTS severity for iliofemoral DVT, whereas there was no benefit for femoropopliteal DVT [ 104 , 105 ]. Timing of intervention also varied; earlier treatment is thought to improve the chance of successful thrombus removal before chronic venous obstruction occurs. Additionally, different interventional modalities were used. CaVenT and ATTRACT used pharmacological CDT with anticoagulation, whereas CAVA used ultrasound-assisted CDT with adjuncts at clinician’s discretion, introducing heterogeneity in efficacy and complication rates. Finally, disparate endpoints and definitions of PTS further complicate interpretation. Given these inconsistences and the observed risk of major bleeding, current data only support a limited role for CDT in patients with iliofemoral DVT who are low bleeding risk.

In addition to CDT, LBMT has shown early promise in the treatment of iliofemoral DVT. Interim analysis of the CLOUT registry demonstrated significant improvement in median Villalta score, from 9 (interquartile range, IQR 5–14) to 1 (IQR 0–3; p < 0.001) at 6-month analysis [ 106 ]. This improvement persisted at 1-year follow up [ 107 ]. Notably, this cohort included iliofemoral and femoropopliteal DVT, with any symptom duration, though half the patients had less than seven days of symptoms. No major bleeding events were reported, noting only a third of patients had a contraindication to thrombolytic therapy. In comparison to the ATTRACT trial, patients treated with LBMT had reduced 12-month incidence of PTS after propensity score matching (17% vs. 38%; p < 0.001) [ 108 ]. While further experience is required, LBMT may offer an attractive interventional option in higher bleeding risk patients, with the upcoming DEFIANCE study aiming to compare LBMT with anticoagulation for iliofemoral DVT [ 109 ].

Taken together, these findings indicate that endovascular approaches for DVT should be applied selectively. The most consistent evidence of benefit appears in patients with acute (<14 days), symptomatic iliofemoral DVT and low bleeding risk, especially those with significant symptom burden or threatened venous outflow. Outside of these scenarios, the data remains inconsistent and routine use is not recommended. Procedural variability, inconsistent patient selection and heterogeneous endpoints highlight the need for better designed trials. Until such evidence emerges, endovascular interventions should be reserved for carefully selected individuals following multidisciplinary discussion.

4.4. Outpatient Management Models

While VTE management has traditionally occurred in a hospital setting, the availability of oral anticoagulants, and more recently DOACs, has allowed for the safe management of many patients in the ambulatory setting. Outpatient management has been of particular interest in low-risk PE, with several international guidelines now recommending that appropriately risk-stratified patients can be managed in the community [ 67 , 88 , 110 ]. However, the uptake of this management strategy has been limited, with no consensus criteria. In the HOME-PE trial, 2000 patients were randomised to triaging by either Hestia criteria or sPESI [ 19 ]. There was no significant difference in the composite primary outcome of recurrent VTE, major bleeding or all-cause death within 30 days ( p = 0.004 for non-inferiority). Importantly, a sPESI score of 0 was overruled in nearly 30% of patients compared to only 3% with a negative Hestia score. This highlights the importance of other considerations, such as psychosocial factors.

Comparable successes have been achieved in other smaller studies, including the MATH-VTE, LOPE and HoT-PE trials, which utilised additional clinical criteria with or without validated prognostic scores to characterise low-risk patients [ 111 , 112 , 113 ]. Fresh consideration has focused on establishing consensus criteria, while addressing the limitation of current prognostic scores. The recently published EARTH (Emergency Advisory and Research international board on Thrombosis and Hemostasis) rule incorporates consideration of social factors, bleeding risk and assessment of right ventricular dysfunction to address the deficiencies in the PESI, sPESI and Hestia criteria [ 114 ]. Pending validation, this criterion may help guide the appropriate selection of patients for outpatient management.

DOACs have reshaped VTE management, but important uncertainties remain for complex patients, while interventional approaches can be considered in selected patients. Emerging factor XI inhibitors may help reduce bleeding, although more evidence is required. Box 1 summarises some of the key treatment considerations.

Treatment key messages.

While DOACs have transformed VTE management, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal treatment of complex patient cohorts, highlighting the limitations of current guidelines and the need for nuanced risk stratification. Novel FXI inhibitors aim to mitigate the limitations of anticoagulation in high bleeding risk cohorts; however, evidence remains early and largely untested in real-world settings. Interventional approaches can enable rapid thrombus removal, but current evidence only supports use in carefully selected intermediate-high risk PE and iliofemoral DVT patients. Outpatient management of low-risk PE is feasible, though its practice remains limited.

5. Risk Stratification—Current Tools and Emerging Needs

5.1. Current Limitations

Risk assessment models (RAMs) are helpful in guiding management of VTE, though opportunities remain to improve precision and clinical applicability, as well as develop novel tools. Clinical acumen and patient-reported symptoms commonly feature in RAMs, such as the Wells criteria for DVT and PE, or the Villalta score for assessing PTS severity [ 115 , 116 , 117 ]. While inter-operator reliability for these tools is generally high, subjectivity remains and potentially affects reproducibility [ 118 , 119 ]. That is not to say clinical features are unhelpful in risk assessment; rather, they provide valuable context that is otherwise unassessable with diagnostic tests or other objective measures. This is emphasized with the Hestia criteria, where consideration is given to psychosocial factors that prevent safe outpatient management of patients with otherwise low-risk PE [ 120 ]. Furthermore, many RAMs used in current clinical practice only cover specific patient cohorts. For example, the Khorana score, used in assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, performs poorly in certain cancer subtypes [ 121 ]. It also does not capture the contribution of cancer therapies to risk. For the risk of recurrence in unprovoked VTE, the HERDOO2, Vienna and DASH scores are largely unvalidated in men, cancer patients and those with high-risk thrombophilia [ 122 ]. These gaps in validated RAMs highlight an opportunity to develop novel risk stratification tools that can improve accuracy and applicability to a diverse cohort of patients.

Currently, most widely used RAMs lack integration of reliable biomarkers. In contrast to clinical criteria, biomarkers offer a more objective assessment of patients’ haemostatic profile. D-dimer is the most commonly used biomarker, incorporated into the Wells criteria and PERC scores to guide the need for imaging for DVT or PE. However, D-dimer is highly non-specific, elevated by inflammation as well as age, with no consensus for thresholds and considerable assay variability [ 123 , 124 ]. In the same vein, the Khorana score utilises haematological parameters, which are surrogate markers but lack specificity for thrombosis. Additionally, while able to identify high-risk patients, the incidence of VTE has been shown to be considerably elevated in lower risk groups, limiting its clinical utility [ 121 ]. However, when combined with D-dimer and p-selectin in the Vienna CATS score, risk stratification is enhanced compared to the original Khorana score [ 125 ]. Thus, identification and incorporation of relevant biomarkers into RAMs will likely enhance their predictive power.

5.2. Biomarkers and Novel Assays

Biomarkers have been increasingly explored to further improve VTE risk stratification. Notably, elevated factor VIII (FVIII) has been associated with VTE risk. The landmark Leiden Thrombophilia Study demonstrated FVIII activity levels > 150 IU/dL were associated with an approximately 5-fold increase in VTE (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.3–10.0) [ 126 ]. In a meta-analysis by Teymoori et al. examining 18 studies, FVIII activity levels > 200 IU/dL was associated with increased VTE recurrence (RR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.32–2.19; p < 0.001) [ 127 ]. Notably there was significant heterogeneity between studies, limiting interpretability. Another systematic review found mixed association of FVIII to VTE, again with significant heterogeneity, preventing meta-analysis [ 128 ]. In comparison to p-selectin, FVIII assays are much more widely available; however, they have yet to be integrated into any RAMs. Furthermore, as FVIII levels are affected by factors such as age, inflammation and timing from the acute event, careful consideration of threshold values will be necessary before incorporation into RAMs [ 128 , 129 , 130 ].

P-selectin has also emerged as one of the major novel biomarkers in predicting VTE. It is a transmembrane protein stored in platelet α-granules and endothelial Weibel-Palade bodies and released upon cell activation, leading to cell surface expression and release of soluble p-selectin into plasma [ 131 , 132 ]. Soluble p-selectin has been shown to be significantly elevated in patients with VTE, even with concurrent medical comorbidities, including solid organ malignancy, HIV and lupus anticoagulant [ 133 ]. It has also been associated with recurrent VTE in patients with prior unprovoked VTE [ 134 ], as well as development and recurrence of CAT in both solid organ and haematological malignancy [ 135 , 136 ]. A recent prospective study in the Tromsø population evaluated soluble p-selectin in predicting VTE in patients with no prior VTE [ 137 ]. The authors discovered that elevated soluble p-selectin levels in the highest quartile were associated with increased VTE risk compared to the lowest quartile in women (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.01–2.64). Paradoxically, higher levels of soluble p-selectin were associated with lower VTE risk in men (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.42–1.15), the pathophysiology of which is unknown. This sex specific difference will need to be addressed before p-selectin can be more broadly incorporated into RAMs. Nonetheless, current studies, as well as the aforementioned Vienna CATS score, demonstrate the potential additive value of p-selectin in VTE risk assessment.

Tissue-factor bearing microparticles (TF-MP) have been previously shown to expressed at higher levels in cancer patients compared to healthy controls [ 138 ]. Increased TF-MP activity has also been seen in cancer patients with VTE compared to those without [ 139 ]. These findings were agreed upon in a meta-analysis conducted by Cui et al., where TF-MP have been shown to be associated with VTE risk in cancer patients (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.21–2.56) [ 140 ]. The association appears to be conflicting in the general population. Ay et al. found no association between TF-MP and VTE risk in their age and gender matched cohort [ 141 ]. Conversely, Bal et al. demonstrated acutely elevated levels in PE patients, while Ye et al. demonstrated the same in patients with recurrent DVT [ 142 , 143 ]. However, TF-MP can be elevated in a number of different diseases in addition to cancer, such as liver and cardiovascular disease, as well as active infections [ 144 ]. These factors will need to be accounted for before TF-MP are used more widely in VTE risk stratification.

While individual biomarkers provide insight into components of the coagulation pathway and the pathophysiology of thrombosis, they offer only a limited snapshot of the coagulation cascade. Global coagulation assays, which capture the interplay of pro- and anti-coagulant factors, provide a more comprehensive assessment of thrombotic potential and may have a role in VTE risk stratification. The Calibrated Automated Thrombogram (CAT), an assay that assesses thrombin generation, has been the most widely studied in this area. These assays have previously been shown to be independently associated with VTE recurrence [ 145 , 146 ]. There appears to be significant variability in methods, with other studies demonstrating association with risk of first VTE but not recurrence, though both had methodological issues in sample preparation and timing of the assays [ 147 , 148 ]. Conversely, The Overall Haemostatic Potential (OHP) assay simultaneously assesses fibrin formation and fibrinolysis in a single test system [ 149 ]. In small pilot studies, OHP has demonstrated promise as a risk stratification tool for VTE recurrence and PTS [ 150 , 151 ].

In addition to the biomarker specific limitations, there are several overarching barriers that limit the wider integration of novel biomarkers and global coagulation assays in RAMs. Besides FVIII, most exist primarily as research tools, with no standardised protocols, established reference method, validated cut-offs or clinical decision points. Furthermore, many of these assays are sensitive to pre-analytical variables such as sample timing, acute inflammation, and patient demographics and comorbidities. For instance, technical factors such as a difficult blood draw or even needle gauge may affect the outcomes of TF-MP results [ 152 ]. Inter-lot variability is also common in research-based assays and is another barrier to reproducibility. This was illustrated by Feng et al., where an average of 62.4% lot-to-lot variability was identified in their biomarker control assays [ 153 ]. These uncertainties undermine their reliability as standalone predictors. Importantly, very few studies have evaluated how these biomarkers perform across diverse, real-world populations and demonstrated meaningfully improve risk prediction beyond established clinical factors. Larger, prospective validation studies, harmonised assay methodology and clarification of threshold values are essential before these biomarkers can be integrated into routine VTE RAMs or guide clinical decision making.

5.3. The Role of Artificial Intelligence

Another key limitation of current VTE RAMs is the largely static combinations of clinical and laboratory variables, which may not fully represent an individual’s dynamic VTE risk. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a tool in medicine with potential to improve diagnosis and risk stratification, and has been explored in VTE for primary prevention and diagnosis [ 154 ]. In particular, machine learning (ML) models are able to adapt to data over time and adjust their risk assessments accordingly. In one pooled analysis of 20 studies, predominantly ML models, these methods demonstrated superior ability to predict first VTE events (area under curve, AUC 0.79 vs. 0.61 for conventional models) [ 155 ]. Another meta-analysis examining 27 ML based models reported strong predictive ability for VTE (c-index 0.84; 95% CI 0.8–0.88) [ 156 ]. However, both analyses, despite demonstrating predictive ability, highlight several key shortcomings. Many included models were constructed from niche or small populations and failed to provide details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study design and intended use cases of models were heterogenous, limiting direct comparisons between models. High risk of bias was also observed, due to lack of details on eligibility criteria, model calibration, outcome definitions and handling of missing data. Furthermore, only 2 (10%) and 4 (15%) of studies in the respective reviews were externally validated, raising the possibility that reported performance is overestimated. Together, these issues, along with the limited evidence base, temper the current clinical utility of ML models. Careful validation in diverse clinical settings will be vital before routine use.

Similar to the lack of gold-standard assays for novel biomarkers, there is no single “benchmark model” for AI models. For example, in one study examining ML models for the prediction of VTE in patients with coronary artery disease, the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model performed the best in internal validation [ 157 ]. However, other models had higher AUC and specificity on external validation. In hospitalised cancer patients, XGBoost was found to be the best predictive VTE model [ 158 ], yet performed worse than the random forest model when examining postoperative VTE risk in cervical cancer patients [ 159 ]. Different clinical scenarios may favour different ML models, representing another complexity in implementation.

Beyond the need for further development and validation, the implementation of AI in healthcare settings raises concerns regarding the transparency, automation bias, deterioration of clinical acumen and ethical and legal implications [ 160 ]. Surveys of informaticians and clinicians reflect these concerns, with agreement that while AI models can assist in VTE management, clinical judgement remains paramount [ 161 ]. Successful adoption of ML models for VTE risk assessment depends not only on the technical aspects of design and implementation, but also on clinician acceptance and engagement. Large, prospective, real-world studies, with transparent reporting and validation across multiple settings, are essential before these tools can be integrated into routine clinical practice.

Current risk assessment models have limited individual level accuracy while emerging biomarkers and artificial intelligence still require validation in real-world settings. Box 2 summarises some of the considerations for current and future risk stratification strategies.

Risk stratification key messages.

Current RAMs are based on historical cohorts with minimal biomarker integration and may not accurately assess risk in contemporary populations. Novel biomarkers, such as FVIII, p-selectin and TF-MP, as well as global coagulation assays may provide more objective assessments of thrombotic risk, but require standardisation and real-world validation. AI and ML models represent another tool to improve VTE risk stratification, but face technical, ethical and clinician acceptance barriers.

6. Conclusions

The contemporary VTE patient cohort is increasingly heterogeneous and complex, driven by rising traditional risk factors and emerging contributors. This shift poses new challenges for treatment and risk stratification. While DOACs have transformed care by offering simpler, safer and effective anticoagulation, important gaps remain for patients with high bleeding risk and optimal management for select cohorts remains unclear. Novel FXII and FXIII inhibitors and interventional strategies for PE and DVT show early promise but remain under investigation, and may only benefit select patients. Concurrently, current risk assessment models are poorly aligned with modern VTE populations. While novel biomarkers offer objective insight into thrombotic potential, their use is limited by lack of standardization and clinical validation. The use of AI and ML models may offer an alternate risk stratification strategy, but face major barriers including limited external validation and methodological heterogeneity for now. Collectively, these innovations, summarised in Figure 1 , hold potential to reshape VTE management. However, widespread adoption will require rigorous evaluation, standardisation and validation to ensure meaningful improvements in real-world outcomes.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm15041509/s1 , Table S1: Database search strategy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L. and H.Y.L.; data curation, P.L.; writing—original draft preparation, P.L.; writing—review and editing, P.L., P.H. and H.Y.L.; supervision, H.Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

Associate Professor Hui Yin Lim (H.Y.L.) is the special issue editor. H.Y.L. had no involvement in the peer-review or editorial decision making of this manuscript.

References

1. Raskob G.E. Angchaisuksiri P. Blanco A.N. Buller H. Gallus A. Hunt B.J. Hylek E.M. Kakkar A. Konstantinides S.V. McCumber M. Thrombosis: A major contributor to global disease burden Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2014 34 2363 2371 10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304488 25304324

2. Fernandez M.M. Hogue S. Preblick R. Kwong W.J. Review of the cost of venous thromboembolism Clin. Outcomes Res. 2015 7 451 462 10.2147/CEOR.S85635 26355805 PMC4559246

3. Seemann K. Silas U. Bosworth Smith A. Münch T. Saunders S.J. Veloz A. Saunders R. The burden of venous thromboembolism in ten countries: A cost-of-illness Markov model on surgical and ICU patients J. Med. Econ. 2025 28 1 12 10.1080/13696998.2024.2436797 39611872

4. Brækkan S.K. Hansen J.-B. VTE epidemiology and challenges for VTE prevention at the population level Thromb. Updat. 2023 10 100132 10.1016/j.tru.2023.100132

5. Wang R.C. Miglioretti D.L. Marlow E.C. Kwan M.L. Theis M.K. Bowles E.J.A. Greenlee R.T. Rahm A.K. Stout N.K. Weinmann S. Trends in Imaging for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Across US Health Care Systems, 2004 to 2016 JAMA Netw. Open. 2020 3 e2026930 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.26930 33216141 PMC7679949

6. Arshad N. Isaksen T. Hansen J.B. Brækkan S.K. Time trends in incidence rates of venous thromboembolism in a large cohort recruited from the general population Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2017 32 299 305 10.1007/s10654-017-0238-y 28314981

7. Sussman T.A. Giobbie-Hurder A. Dryg I.D. Manos M. Weirather J.L. LeBoeuf N.R. Hodi F.S. Connors J.M. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated risk for venous thromboembolism: A comprehensive analysis J. Immunother. Cancer 2025 13 e010761 10.1136/jitc-2024-010761 40341027 PMC12067813

8. Hashmi H. Mirza A.S. Darwin A. Logothetis C. Garcia F. Kommalapati A. Mhaskar R.S. Bachmeier C. Chavez J.C. Shah B. Venous thromboembolism associated with CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy in large B-cell lymphoma Blood Adv. 2020 4 4086 4090 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002060 32877523 PMC7479945

9. Franco-Moreno A. Ryan P. Muñoz-Rivas N. Valencia J. Torres-Macho J. Bacete-Cebrián S. Risk of venous thromboembolism in the transgender population on hormone therapy: A systematic review Med. Clin. 2025 164 106921 10.1016/j.medcli.2025.106921 40250154

10. Hokusai-VTE Investigators Büller H.R. Décousus H. Grosso M.A. Mercuri M. Middeldorp S. Prins M.H. Raskob G.E. Schellong S.M. Schwocho L. Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 1406 1415 23991658 10.1056/NEJMoa1306638

11. Agnelli G. Buller H.R. Cohen A. Curto M. Gallus A.S. Johnson M. Masiukiewicz U. Pak R. Thompson J. Raskob G.E. Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 799 808 10.1056/NEJMoa1302507 23808982

12. EINSTEIN Investigators Bauersachs R. Berkowitz S.D. Brenner B. Buller H.R. Decousus H. Gallus A.S. Lensing A.W. Misselwitz F. Prins M.H. Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 363 2499 2510 21128814 10.1056/NEJMoa1007903

13. EINSTEIN–PE Investigators Büller H.R. Prins M.H. Lensin A.W. Decousus H. Jacobson B.F. Minar E. Chlumsky J. Verhamme P. Wells P. Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 366 1287 1297 10.1056/NEJMoa1113572 22449293

14. Schulman S. Kakkar A.K. Goldhaber S.Z. Schellong S. Eriksson H. Mismetti P. Christiansen A.V. Friedman J. Le Maulf F. Peter N. Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis Circulation 2014 129 764 772 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.004450 24344086

15. Verhamme P. Yi B.A. Segers A. Salter J. Bloomfield D. Büller H.R. Raskob G.E. Weitz J.I. ANT-005 TKA Investigators Abelacimab for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2021 385 609 617 10.1056/NEJMoa2105872 34297496

16. Weitz J.I. Tankó L.B. Floege J. Fox K.A.A. Bhatt D.L. Thadhani R. Hung J. Pap Á.F. Kubitza D. Winkelmayer W.C. Anticoagulation with osocimab in patients with kidney failure undergoing hemodialysis: A randomized phase 2 trial Nat. Med. 2024 30 435 442 10.1038/s41591-023-02794-7 38365952 PMC10878964

17. Jaber W.A. Gonsalves C.F. Stortecky S. Horr S. Pappas O. Gandhi R.T. Pereira K. Giri J. Khandhar S.J. Ammar K.A. Large-Bore Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Results of the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial Circulation 2025 151 260 273 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364 39470698 PMC11789609

18. Plotnik A.N. Haber Z. Kee S. Current Evidence for Endovascular Therapies in the Management of Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2024 47 1571 1579 10.1007/s00270-024-03784-z 38914768

19. Roy P.M. Penaloza A. Hugli O. Klok F.A. Arnoux A. Elias A. Couturaud F. Joly L.M. Lopez R. Faber L.M. Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: The HOME-PE randomized trial Eur. Heart J. 2021 42 3146 3157 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab373 34363386 PMC8408662

20. Khorana A.A. Kuderer N.M. Culakova E. Lyman G.H. Francis C.W. Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis Blood 2008 111 4902 4907 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116327 18216292 PMC2384124

21. Rodger M.A. Kahn S.R. Wells P.S. Anderson D.A. Chagnon I. Le Gal G. Solymoss S. Crowther M. Perrier A. White R. Identifying unprovoked thromboembolism patients at low risk for recurrence who can discontinue anticoagulant therapy Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2008 179 417 426 10.1503/cmaj.080493 18725614 PMC2518177

22. de Winter M.A. Büller H.R. Carrier M. Cohen A.T. Hansen J.B. Kaasjager K.A.H. Kakkar A.K. Middeldorp S. Raskob G.E. Sørensen H.T. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding with extended anticoagulation: The VTE-PREDICT risk score Eur. Heart J. 2023 44 1231 1244 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac776 36648242 PMC10079391

23. Naess I.A. Christiansen S.C. Romundstad P. Cannegieter S.C. Rosendaal F.R. Hammerstrøm J. Incidence and mortality of venous thrombosis: A population-based study J. Thromb. Haemost. 2007 5 692 699 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02450.x 17367492

24. Li J. Han X. Zhang X. Wang S. Spatiotemporal evolution of global population ageing from 1960 to 2017 BMC Public Health 2019 19 127 10.1186/s12889-019-6465-2 30700286 PMC6354390

25. Navaneetham K. Arunachalam D. Global population aging, 1950–2050 Handbook of Aging, Health, and Public Policy Uhlenberg P. Springer Singapore 2023 1 18

26. Arnesen C.A.L. Veres K. Horváth-Puhó E. Hansen J.B. Sørensen H.T. Brækkan S.K. Estimated lifetime risk of venous thromboembolism in men and women in a Danish nationwide cohort: Impact of competing risk of death Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2022 37 195 203 10.1007/s10654-021-00813-w 34746973 PMC8960584

27. Huang W. Goldberg R.J. Anderson F.A. Kiefe C.I. Spencer F.A. Secular trends in occurrence of acute venous thromboembolism: The Worcester VTE study (1985–2009) Am. J. Med. 2014 127 829 839.e5 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.03.041 24813864 PMC4161646

28. Caraballo C. Herrin J. Mahajan S. Massey D. Lu Y. Ndumele C.D. Drye E.E. Krumholz H.M. Temporal Trends in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Multimorbidity Prevalence in the United States, 1999–2018 Am. J. Med. 2022 135 1083 1092.e14 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022.04.010 35472394

29. Chowdhury S.R. Chandra Das D. Sunna T.C. Beyene J. Hossain A. Global and regional prevalence of multimorbidity in the adult population in community settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis EClinicalMedicine 2023 57 101860 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101860 36864977 PMC9971315

30. Permanyer I. Gumà J. Trias-Llimós S. Solé-Auró A. Multimorbidity trends in Catalonia, 2010–2021: A population-based cohort study Int. J. Epidemiol. 2026 55 dyaf218 10.1093/ije/dyaf218 41481243 PMC12758007

31. Rosenberg P.S. Miranda-Filho A. Cancer Incidence Trends in Successive Social Generations in the US JAMA Netw. Open. 2024 7 e2415731 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15731 38857048 PMC11165384

32. Wu Z. Xia F. Lin R. Global burden of cancer and associated risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1980–2021: A systematic analysis for the GBD 2021 J. Hematol. Oncol. 2024 17 119 10.1186/s13045-024-01640-8 39614359 PMC11607901

33. Bizuayehu H.M. Ahmed K.Y. Kibret G.D. Dadi A.F. Belachew S.A. Bagade T. Tegegne T.K. Venchiarutti R.L. Kibret K.T. Hailegebireal A.H. Global Disparities of Cancer and Its Projected Burden in 2050 JAMA Netw. Open 2024 7 e2443198 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43198 39499513 PMC11539015

34. Hughes T. Harper A. Gupta S. Frazier A.L. van der Graaf W.T.A. Moreno F. Joseph A. Fidler-Benaoudia M.M. The current and future global burden of cancer among adolescents and young adults: A population-based study Lancet Oncol. 2024 25 1614 1624 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00523-0 39557059

35. Mulder F.I. Horváth-Puhó E. van Es N. van Laarhoven H.W.M. Pedersen L. Moik F. Ay C. Büller H.R. Sørensen H.T. Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A population-based cohort study Blood 2021 137 1959 1969 10.1182/blood.2020007338 33171494

36. Mahajan A. Brunson A. Adesina O. Keegan T.H.M. Wun T. The incidence of cancer-associated thrombosis is increasing over time Blood Adv. 2022 6 307 320 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005590 34649273 PMC8753193

37. Covut F. Sanfilippo K.M. Mitigating the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory-based therapy Hematology 2022 2022 363 367 10.1182/hematology.2022000414 36485142 PMC9820182

38. Xu X. Chlebowski R.T. Shi J. Barac A. Haque R. Aromatase inhibitor and tamoxifen use and the risk of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer survivors Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2019 174 785 794 10.1007/s10549-018-05086-8 30659431

39. Roopkumar J. Swaidani S. Kim A.S. Thapa B. Gervaso L. Hobbs B.P. Wei W. Alban T.J. Funchain P. Kundu S. Increased Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism with Cancer Immunotherapy Med 2021 2 423 434 10.1016/j.medj.2021.02.002 34036293 PMC8143033

40. Bindal P. Patell R. Chiasakul T. Lauw M.N. Ko A. Wang T.F. Zwicker J.I. A meta-analysis to assess the risk of bleeding and thrombosis following chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Hemostasis and Malignancy J. Thromb. Haemost. 2024 22 2071 2080 10.1016/j.jtha.2024.03.021 38574863 PMC11437522

41. Chitkara A. Sreenivasan S. Yin Y. Rai M. Sadashiv S. Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Hematological Malignancies Post-Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR-T) Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Phase 2 and Phase 3 Clinical Trials Curr. Oncol. 2024 31 4338 4345 10.3390/curroncol31080323 39195306 PMC11352860

42. GBD 2021 Adult BMI Collaborators Global, regional, and national prevalence of adult overweight and obesity, 1990–2021, with forecasts to 2050: A forecasting study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 Lancet 2025 405 813 838 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00355-1 40049186 PMC11920007

43. Napoleone E. DISanto A. Amore C. Baccante G. di Febbo C. Porreca E. de Gaetano G. Donati M.B. Lorenzet R. Leptin induces tissue factor expression in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells: A possible link between obesity and cardiovascular risk? J. Thromb. Haemost. 2007 5 1462 1468 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02578.x 17425664

44. Petrini S. Neri T. Lombardi S. Cordazzo C. Balìa C. Scalise V. Paggiaro P. Pedrinelli R. Celi A. Leptin induces the generation of procoagulant, tissue factor bearing microparticles by human peripheral blood mononuclear cells Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2016 1860 1354 1361 10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.03.029 27015759

45. Frischmuth T. Hindberg K. Aukrust P. Ueland T. Braekkan S.K. Hansen J.B. Morelli V.M. Elevated plasma levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 are associated with risk of future incident venous thromboembolism J. Thromb. Haemost. 2022 20 1618 1626 10.1111/jth.15701 35289062 PMC9314992

46. Ageno W. Becattini C. Brighton T. Selby R. Kamphuisen P.W. Cardiovascular risk factors and venous thromboembolism: A meta-analysis Circulation 2008 117 93 102 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.709204 18086925

47. Horvei L.D. Brækkan S.K. Hansen J.B. Weight Change and Risk of Venous Thromboembolism: The Tromsø Study PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0168878 10.1371/journal.pone.0168878 27997594 PMC5173365

48. Totaro M. Palazzi S. Castellini C. Parisi A. D’Amato F. Tienforti D. Baroni M.G. Francavilla S. Barbonetti A. Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Transgender People Undergoing Hormone Feminizing Therapy: A Prevalence Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Study Front. Endocrinol. 2021 12 741866 10.3389/fendo.2021.741866 34880832 PMC8647165

49. Kort D. van Rein N. van der Meer F.J.M. Vermaas H.W. Wiersma N. Cannegieter S.C. Lijfering W.M. Relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic status and venous thromboembolism: Results from a population-based study J. Thromb. Haemost. 2017 15 2352 2360 10.1111/jth.13868 29027356

50. Jørgensen H. Horváth-Puhó E. Laugesen K. Braekkan S. Hansen J.B. Sørensen H.T. Socioeconomic status and risk of incident venous thromboembolism J. Thromb. Haemost. 2021 19 3051 3061 10.1111/jth.15523 34498381

51. Swan D. Turner R. Franchini M. Mannucci P.M. Thachil J. Air pollution and venous thromboembolism: Current knowledge and future perspectives Lancet Haematol. 2025 12 e68 e82 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00291-6 39653046

52. Lutsey P.L. Misialek J.R. Young M.T. Berman J. Leiser C.L. Pope Z.C. Cushman M. Folsom A.R. Kaufman J.D. Air pollution is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Blood 2025 145 1089 1096 10.1182/blood.2024026399 39652776 PMC11923424

53. Woller S.C. Steven S.M. Bledsoe J.R. Bride D. Lloyd J.F. Butler A. Fazili M. Horne B.D. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with short-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone air pollution Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2025 9 103226 10.1016/j.rpth.2025.103226 41322111 PMC12657318

54. Rose D.K. Bar B. Direct Oral Anticoagulant Agents: Pharmacologic Profile, Indications, Coagulation Monitoring, and Reversal Agents J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2018 27 2049 2058 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.04.004 29753603

55. Jun M. Lix L.M. Durand M. Dahl M. Paterson J.M. Dormuth C.R. Ernst P. Yao S. Renoux C. Tamim H. Comparative safety of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin in venous thromboembolism: Multicentre, population based, observational study BMJ 2017 359 j4323 10.1136/bmj.j4323 29042362 PMC5641962

56. Kang H.R. Dietrich E.A. Huang P.L. Lo-Ciganic W.H. DeRemer C.E. Park H. Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin among patients with recurrent venous thromboembolism Clin. Transl. Sci. 2023 16 946 954 10.1111/cts.13510 36891985 PMC10264957

57. Fang M.C. Reynolds K. Fan D. Prasad P.A. Sung S.H. Portugal C. Garcia E. Go A.S. Clinical Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Warfarin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism JAMA Netw. Open 2023 6 e2328033 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28033 37581888 PMC10427945

58. Lui B. Wee B. Lai J. Khattak Z. Kwok A. Donarelli C. Ho P. Lim H.Y. A ten-year review of the impact of the transition from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulant—Has venous thromboembolism treatment become safer? Thromb. Res. 2022 219 112 120 10.1016/j.thromres.2022.09.006 36162254

59. Khorana A.A. Noble S. Lee A.Y.Y. Soff G. Meyer G. O’Connell C. Carrier M. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH J. Thromb. Haemost. 2018 16 1891 1894 10.1111/jth.14219 30027649

60. Martin K.A. Beyer-Westendorf J. Davidson B.L. Huisman M.V. Sandset P.M. Moll S. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: Updated communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation J. Thromb. Haemost. 2021 19 1874 1882 10.1111/jth.15358 34259389

61. Stevens S.M. Woller S.C. Kreuziger L.B. Bounameaux H. Doerschug K. Geersing G.J. Huisman M.V. Kearon C. King C.S. Knighton A.J. Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: Second Update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report Chest 2021 160 e545 e608 10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055 34352278

62. Kearon C. Kahn S.R. Long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism Blood 2020 135 317 325 10.1182/blood.2019002364 31917402

63. Khan F. Tritschler T. Kimpton M. Wells P.S. Kearon C. Weitz J.I. Büller H.R. Raskob G.E. Ageno W. Couturaud F. Long-term risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism among patients receiving extended oral anticoagulant therapy for first unprovoked venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis J. Thromb. Haemost. 2021 19 2801 2813 10.1111/jth.15491 34379859

64. Lim H.Y. Nandurkar H. Ho P. Direct Oral Anticoagulants and the Paradigm Shift in the Management of Venous Thromboembolism Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2018 44 261 266 10.1055/s-0038-1637750 29558778

65. Ebraheem M. Alzahrani I. Crowther M. Rochwerg B. Almakadi M. Extended DOAC therapy in patients with VTE and potential risk of recurrence: A systematic review and meta-analysis J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020 18 2308 2317 10.1111/jth.14949 32510840

66. Kearon C. Balancing risks and benefits of extended anticoagulant therapy for idiopathic venous thrombosis J. Thromb. Haemost. 2009 7 296 300 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03388.x 19630820

67. Ortel T.L. Neumann I. Ageno W. Beyth R. Clark N.P. Cuker A. Hutten B.A. Jaff M.R. Manja V. Schulman S. American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism Blood Adv. 2020 4 4693 4738 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001830 33007077 PMC7556153

68. Piazza G. Bikdeli B. Pandey A.K. Krishnathasan D. Khairani C.D. Bejjani A. Morrison R.H. Hogan H. Rashedi S. Pfeferman M. Apixaban for Extended Treatment of Provoked Venous Thromboembolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2025 393 1166 1176 10.1056/NEJMoa2509426 40888734

69. Chua C.C. Lim H.Y. Tacey M. Nandurkar H. Ho P. Retrospective evaluation of venous thromboembolism: Are all transient provoking events the same? Eur. J. Haematol. 2017 99 18 26 10.1111/ejh.12884 28321922

70. Upreti V.V. Wang J. Barrett Y.C. Byon W. Boyd R.A. Pursley J. LaCreta F.P. Frost C.E. Effect of extremes of body weight on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of apixaban in healthy subjects Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013 76 908 916 10.1111/bcp.12114 23488672 PMC3845314

71. Piran S. Traquair H. Chan N. Bhagirath V. Schulman S. Peak plasma concentration of direct oral anticoagulants in obese patients weighing over 120 kilograms: A retrospective study Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2018 2 684 688 10.1002/rth2.12146 30349887 PMC6178753

72. Kubitza D. Becka M. Zuehlsdorf M. Mueck W. Body weight has limited influence on the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, or pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban (BAY 59-7939) in healthy subjects J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2007 47 218 226 10.1177/0091270006296058 17244773

73. Rottenstreich A. Barkai A. Arad A. Raccah B.H. Kalish Y. The effect of bariatric surgery on direct-acting oral anticoagulant drug levels Thromb. Res. 2018 163 190 195 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.11.006 29157916

74. Gunka B. Mackenzie D. Hughes T. Sardo L. Bayadinova J. Siegal D.M. Tseng E.K. Doumouras A.G. Mithoowani S. Pharmacokinetics of direct oral anticoagulants after bariatric surgery: A retrospective cohort study Thromb. Res. 2024 235 15 17 10.1016/j.thromres.2024.01.007 38266535

75. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Eliquis (Apixaban) Tablets Prescribing Information 2025 Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2025/202155s039s040lbl.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2026)

76. European Medicines Agency Eliquis (Apixaban) Summary of Product Characteristics 2025 Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/eliquis-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2026)

77. Connolly S.J. Crowther M. Eikelboom J.W. Gibson C.M. Curnutte J.T. Lawrence J.H. Yue P. Bronson M.D. Lu G. Conley P.B. Full Study Report of Andexanet Alfa for Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 1326 1335 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051 30730782 PMC6699827

78. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Update on the Safety of Andexxa by AstraZeneca: FDA Safety Communication [Internet] 19 December 2025 Available online: https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/update-safety-andexxa-astrazeneca-fda-safety-communication (accessed on 26 January 2026)

79. Löwenberg E.C. Meijers J.C. Monia B.P. Levi M. Coagulation factor XI as a novel target for antithrombotic treatment J. Thromb. Haemost. 2010 8 2349 2357 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04031.x 20727068

80. Salomon O. Steinberg D.M. Zucker M. Varon D. Zivelin A. Seligsohn U. Patients with severe factor XI deficiency have a reduced incidence of deep-vein thrombosis Thromb. Haemost. 2011 105 269 273 10.1160/TH10-05-0307 21057700

81. Preis M. Hirsch J. Kotler A. Zoabi A. Stein N. Rennert G. Saliba W. Factor XI deficiency is associated with lower risk for cardiovascular and venous thromboembolism events Blood 2017 129 1210 1215 10.1182/blood-2016-09-742262 28039189

82. Steiner D. Kraemmer D. Nopp S. Königsbrügge O. Ay C. A Systematic Review of Safety and Efficacy of Factor XI/XIa Inhibitors in Patients with ESKD on Hemodialysis Kidney Int. Rep. 2024 10 145 156 10.1016/j.ekir.2024.10.007 39810768 PMC11725973

83. Gailani D. Gruber A. Targeting factor XI and factor XIa to prevent thrombosis Blood 2024 143 1465 1475 10.1182/blood.2023020722 38142404 PMC11033593

84. Anthos Therapeutics A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Blinded Endpoint Evaluation, Phase 3 Study Comparing the Effect of Abelacimab Relative to Apixaban on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Recurrence and Bleeding in Patients with Cancer-Associated VTE (ASTER). ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05171049 Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05171049 (accessed on 18 September 2025)

85. Anthos Therapeutics A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Blinded Endpoint Evaluation, Phase 3 Study Comparing the Effect of Abelacimab Relative to Dalteparin on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Recurrence and Bleeding in Patients with Gastrointestinal (GI)/Genitourinary (GU) Cancer-Associated VTE (MAGNOLIA). ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05171075 Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05171075 (accessed on 18 September 2025)

86. Ruff C.T. Patel S.M. Giugliano R.P. Morrow D.A. Hug B. Kuder J.F. Goodrich E.L. Chen S.A. Goodman S.G. Joung B. Abelacimab versus Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation N. Engl. J. Med. 2025 392 361 371 10.1056/NEJMoa2406674 39842011

87. Prajapathi S. Pradhan A. Mohta A. Sethi R. The third-generation anticoagulants: Factors XI, XII, and XIII inhibitors Egypt. Heart J. 2024 76 137 10.1186/s43044-024-00570-7 39387964 PMC11466925

88. Konstantinides S.V. Meyer G. Becattini C. Bueno H. Geersing G.J. Harjola V.P. Huisman M.V. Humbert M. Jennings C.S. Jiménez D. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Eur. Heart J. 2020 41 543 603 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405 31504429

89. Leidi A. Bex S. Righini M. Berner A. Grosgurin O. Marti C. Risk Stratification in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Current Evidence and Perspectives J. Clin. Med. 2022 11 2533 10.3390/jcm11092533 35566658 PMC9104204

90. Weekes A.J. Fraga D.N. Belyshev V. Bost W. Gardner C.A. O’Connell N.S. Intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: Echocardiography predictors of clinical deterioration Crit. Care 2022 26 160 10.1186/s13054-022-04030-z 35659340 PMC9166499

91. Meyer G. Vicaut E. Danays T. Agnelli G. Becattini C. Beyer-Westendorf J. Bluhmki E. Bouvaist H. Brenner B. Couturaud F. Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 370 1402 1411 10.1056/NEJMoa1302097 24716681

92. Mirambeaux R. León F. Bikdeli B. Morillo R. Barrios D. Mercedes E. Moores L. Tapson V. Yusen R.D. Jiménez D. Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism TH Open 2019 3 e356 e363 10.1055/s-0039-3401003 31815247 PMC6892655

93. Lauder L. Pérez Navarro P. Götzinger F. Ewen S. Al Ghorani H. Haring B. Lepper P.M. Kulenthiran S. Böhm M. Link A. Mechanical thrombectomy in intermediate- and high-risk acute pulmonary embolism: Hemodynamic outcomes at three months Respir. Res. 2023 24 257 10.1186/s12931-023-02552-w 37880651 PMC10601326

94. Lookstein R.A. Konstantinides S.V. Weinberg I. Dohad S.Y. Rosol Z. Kopeć G. Moriarty J.M. Parikh S.A. Holden A. Channick R.N. Randomized Controlled Trial of Mechanical Thrombectomy with Anticoagulation Versus Anticoagulation Alone for Acute Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Outcomes from the STORM-PE Trial Circulation 2026 153 21 34 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.077232 41183181

95. Giri J. Mahfoud F. Gebauer B. Andersen A. Friedman O. Gandhi R.T. Jaber W.A. Pereira K. West F.M. PEERLESS II: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Large-Bore Thrombectomy Versus Anticoagulation in Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism J. Soc. Cardiovasc. Angiogr. Interv. 2024 3 101982 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.101982 39132600 PMC11308785

96. Klok F.A. Piazza G. Sharp A.S.P. Ní Ainle F. Jaff M.R. Chauhan N. Patel B. Barco S. Goldhaber S.Z. Kucher N. Ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism: Rationale and design of the HI-PEITHO study Am. Heart J. 2022 251 43 53 10.1016/j.ahj.2022.05.011 35588898

97. Sista A.K. Troxel A.B. Tarpey T. Parpia S. Goldhaber S.Z. Stringer W.W. Magnuson E.A. Cohen D.J. Kahn S.R. Rao S.V. Rationale and design of the PE-TRACT trial: A multicenter randomized trial to evaluate catheter-directed therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism Am. Heart J. 2025 281 112 122 10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.016 39638275 PMC11810573

98. Tick L.W. Doggen C.J. Rosendaal F.R. Faber W.R. Bousema M.T. Mackaay A.J. VANBalen P. Kramer M.H. Predictors of the post-thrombotic syndrome with non-invasive venous examinations in patients 6 weeks after a first episode of deep vein thrombosis J. Thromb. Haemost. 2010 8 2685 2692 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04065.x 20860679

99. Enden T. Kløw N.E. Sandvik L. Slagsvold C.E. Ghanima W. Hafsahl G. Holme P.A. Holmen L.O. Njaastad A.M. Sandbaek G. Catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. anticoagulant therapy alone in deep vein thrombosis: Results of an open randomized, controlled trial reporting on short-term patency J. Thromb. Haemost. 2009 7 1268 1275 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03464.x 19422443

100. Haig Y. Enden T. Grøtta O. Kløw N.E. Slagsvold C.E. Ghanima W. Sandvik L. Hafsahl G. Holme P.A. Holmen L.O. Post-thrombotic syndrome after catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis (CaVenT): 5-year follow-up results of an open-label, randomised controlled trial Lancet Haematol. 2016 3 e64 e71 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00248-3 26853645

101. Vedantham S. Goldhaber S.Z. Julian J.A. Kahn S.R. Jaff M.R. Cohen D.J. Magnuson E. Razavi M.K. Comerota A.J. Gornik H.L. Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep-Vein Thrombosis N. Engl. J. Med. 2017 377 2240 2252 10.1056/NEJMoa1615066 29211671 PMC5763501

102. Notten P. Ten Cate-Hoek A.J. Arnoldussen C.W.K.P. Strijkers R.H.W. de Smet A.A.E.A. Tick L.W. van de Poel M.H.W. Wikkeling O.R.M. Vleming L.J. Koster A. Ultrasound-accelerated catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation for the prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome (CAVA): A single-blind, multicentre, randomised trial Lancet Haematol. 2020 7 e40 e49 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30209-1 31786086

103. Notten P. de Smet A.A.E.A. Tick L.W. van de Poel M.H.W. Wikkeling O.R.M. Vleming L.J. Koster A. Jie K.G. Jacobs E.M.G. Ebben H.P. CAVA (Ultrasound-Accelerated Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis on Preventing Post-Thrombotic Syndrome) Trial: Long-Term Follow-Up Results J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2021 10 e018973 10.1161/JAHA.120.018973 34032127 PMC8483549

104. Comerota A.J. Kearon C. Gu C.S. Julian J.A. Goldhaber S.Z. Kahn S.R. Jaff M.R. Razavi M.K. Kindzelski A.L. Bashir R. Endovascular Thrombus Removal for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis Circulation 2019 139 1162 1173 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037425 30586751 PMC6389417

105. Kearon C. Gu C.S. Julian J.A. Goldhaber S.Z. Comerota A.J. Gornik H.L. Murphy T.P. Lewis L. Kahn S.R. Kindzelski A.L. Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in Acute Femoral-Popliteal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Analysis from a Stratified Randomized Trial Thromb. Haemost. 2019 119 633 644 10.1055/s-0039-1677795 30699446

106. Shaikh A. Zybulewski A. Paulisin J. Bisharat M. Mouawad N.J. Raskin A. Ichinose E. Abramowitz S. Lindquist J. Azene E. Six-Month Outcomes of Mechanical Thrombectomy for Treating Deep Vein Thrombosis: Analysis from the 500-Patient CLOUT Registry Cardiovasc. Intervent Radiol. 2023 46 1571 1580 10.1007/s00270-023-03509-8 37580422 PMC10615929

107. Bisharat M.B. Ichinose E.J. Veerina K.K. Khetarpaul V. Azene E.M. Plotnik A.N. Hnath J. Trestman E. Harlin S.A. Bhat A. One-Year Clinical Outcomes Following Mechanical Thrombectomy for Deep Vein Thrombosis: A CLOUT Registry Analysis J. Soc. Cardiovasc. Angiogr. Interv. 2024 3 101307 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.101307 39131784 PMC11308810

108. Abramowitz S. Shaikh A. Mojibian H. Mouawad N.J. Bunte M.C. Skripochnik E. Lindquist J. Elmasri F. Khalsa B. Bhat A. Comparison of anticoagulation vs mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis J. Vasc. Surg. Venous Lymphat. Disord. 2024 12 101825 10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101825 38278173 PMC11523467

109. Abramowitz S.D. Marko X. D’Souza D. Noor S. Pereira K. Silver M.J. Rosenberg S.P. Markovitz C.D. Tu T. Weinberg I. Rationale and design of the DEFIANCE study: A randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy versus anticoagulation alone for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis Am. Heart J. 2025 281 92 102 10.1016/j.ahj.2024.10.016 39491572

110. Schulman S. Konstantinides S. Hu Y. Tang L.V. Venous Thromboembolic Diseases: Diagnosis, Management and Thrombophilia Testing: Observations on NICE Guideline [NG158] Thromb. Haemost. 2020 120 1143 1146 10.1055/s-0040-1712913 32526791

111. Kline J.A. Adler D.H. Alanis N. Bledsoe J.R. Courtney D.M. d’Etienne J.P. Diercks D.B. Garrett J.S. Jones A.E. Mackenzie D.C. Monotherapy Anticoagulation to Expedite Home Treatment of Patients Diagnosed with Venous Thromboembolism in the Emergency Department: A Pragmatic Effectiveness Trial Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 2021 14 e007600 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007600 34148351 PMC8292171

112. Bledsoe J.R. Woller S.C. Stevens S.M. Aston V. Patten R. Allen T. Horne B.D. Dong L. Lloyd J. Snow G. Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Patients Without Hospitalization: The Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Prospective Management Study Chest 2018 154 249 256 10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.035 29410163

113. Barco S. Schmidtmann I. Ageno W. Bauersachs R.M. Becattini C. Bernardi E. Beyer-Westendorf J. Bonacchini L. Brachmann J. Christ M. Early discharge and home treatment of patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban: An international multicentre single-arm clinical trial Eur. Heart J. 2020 41 509 518 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz367 31120118

114. Servent M. Casey S.D. Stubblefield W.B. Douillet D. Germini F. Penaloza A. Kabrhel C. Huisman M.V. Vinson D.R. Roy P.M. Criteria for home treatment of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (the Emergency Advisory and Research international board on Thrombosis and Hemostasis EARTH—Rule): An international Delphi consensus study J. Thromb. Haemost. 2025 23 1758 1766 10.1016/j.jtha.2025.01.016 39933653 PMC12291073

115. Wolf S.J. McCubbin T.R. Feldhaus K.M. Faragher J.P. Adcock D.M. Prospective validation of Wells Criteria in the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism Ann. Emerg. Med. 2004 44 503 510 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.04.002 15520710

116. Scarvelis D. Wells P.S. Diagnosis and treatment of deep-vein thrombosis Can. Med Assoc. J. 2006 175 1087 1092 10.1503/cmaj.060366 17060659 PMC1609160

117. Kahn S.R. Measurement properties of the Villalta scale to define and classify the severity of the post-thrombotic syndrome J. Thromb. Haemost. 2009 7 884 888 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03339.x 19320818

118. Dewar C. Corretge M. Interrater reliability of the Wells score as part of the assessment of DVT in the emergency department: Agreement between consultant and nurse practitioner Emerg. Med. J. 2008 25 407 410 10.1136/emj.2007.054742 18573950

119. Milan M. Sarolo L. Callegari E. Vedovetto V. Villalta S. Prandoni P. High rate of inter-observer agreement between professional-rated scores of the Villalta scale for the assessment of the post-thrombotic syndrome Thromb Res. 2016 144 182 183 10.1016/j.thromres.2016.06.032 27392138

120. Zondag W. Vingerhoets L.M. Durian M.F. Dolsma A. Faber L.M. Hiddinga B.I. Hofstee H.M. Hoogerbrugge A.D. Hovens M.M. Labots G. Hestia criteria can safely select patients with pulmonary embolism for outpatient treatment irrespective of right ventricular function J. Thromb. Haemost. 2013 11 686 692 10.1111/jth.12146 23336721

121. Mulder F.I. Candeloro M. Kamphuisen P.W. Di Nisio M. Bossuyt P.M. Guman N. Smit K. Büller H.R. van Es N. CAT-Prediction Collaborators The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis Haematologica 2019 104 1277 1287 10.3324/haematol.2018.209114 30606788 PMC6545838

122. Ensor J. Riley R.D. Moore D. Snell K.I. Bayliss S. Fitzmaurice D. Systematic review of prognostic models for recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) post-treatment of first unprovoked VTE BMJ Open 2016 6 e011190 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011190 27154483 PMC4861103

123. Brotman D.J. Segal J.B. Jani J.T. Petty B.G. Kickler T.S. Limitations of D-dimer testing in unselected inpatients with suspected venous thromboembolism Am. J. Med. 2003 114 276 282 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01520-6 12681454

124. Fan B.E. Lippi G. Favaloro E.J. D-dimer Levels for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism: Making sense of international guideline recommendations J. Thromb. Haemost. 2024 22 604 608 10.1016/j.jtha.2023.12.015 38135252

125. Shaw J.R. Kumar V. Mallick R. Carrier M. Ilich A. Key N.S. Wells P. Biomarker-enhanced VTE risk stratification in ambulatory patients with cancer Thromb. Res. 2020 196 437 443 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.09.035 33065408

126. van der Meer F.J. Koster T. Vandenbroucke J.P. Briët E. Rosendaal F.R. The Leiden Thrombophilia Study (LETS) Thromb. Haemost. 1997 78 631 635 9198229

127. Teymoori S. Dezfouli M. Feizi A. Hashemi H. Shirzadi M. Association between elevated plasma levels of factor VIII and risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2025 59 95 109 10.1007/s11239-025-03161-8 40745407

128. Bosch A. Uleryk E. Avila L. Role of factor VIII, IX, and XI in venous thrombosis recurrence risk in adults and children: A systematic review Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2023 7 100064 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.100064 36852262 PMC9958483

129. Tichelaar V. Mulder A. Kluin-Nelemans H. Meijer K. The acute phase reaction explains only a part of initially elevated factor VIII:C levels: A prospective cohort study in patients with venous thrombosis Thromb. Res. 2012 129 183 186 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.09.024 21992898

130. Biguzzi E. Castelli F. Lijfering W.M. Cannegieter S.C. Eikenboom J. Rosendaal F.R. van Hylckama Vlieg A. Rise of levels of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII with age: Role of genetic and acquired risk factors Thromb. Res. 2021 197 172 178 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.11.016 33221577

131. Kawabata K. Nagake Y. Shikata K. Fukuda S. Nakazono H. Takahashi M. Ichikawa H. Makino H. Soluble P-selectin is released from activated platelets in vivo during hemodialysis Nephron 1998 78 148 155 10.1159/000044903 9496730

132. Purdy M. Obi A. Myers D. Wakefield T. P- and E- selectin in venous thrombosis and non-venous pathologies J. Thromb. Haemost. 2022 20 1056 1066 10.1111/jth.15689 35243742 PMC9314977

133. Antonopoulos C.N. Sfyroeras G.S. Kakisis J.D. Moulakakis K.G. Liapis C.D. The role of soluble P selectin in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism Thromb. Res. 2014 133 17 24 10.1016/j.thromres.2013.08.014 24012101

134. Kyrle P.A. Hron G. Eichinger S. Wagner O. Circulating P-selectin and the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism Thromb. Haemost. 2007 97 880 883 10.1160/th07-02-0115 17549288

135. Ay C. Simanek R. Vormittag R. Dunkler D. Alguel G. Koder S. Kornek G. Marosi C. Wagner O. Zielinski C. High plasma levels of soluble P-selectin are predictive of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: Results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS) Blood 2008 112 2703 2708 10.1182/blood-2008-02-142422 18539899

136. van Es N. Louzada M. Carrier M. Tagalakis V. Gross P.L. Shivakumar S. Rodger M.A. Wells P.S. Predicting the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A prospective cohort study Thromb. Res. 2018 163 41 46 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.01.009 29353682

137. Swamy S. Ueland T. Hansen J.B. Snir O. Brækkan S.K. Plasma levels of P-selectin and future risk of incident venous thromboembolism J. Thromb. Haemost. 2023 21 2451 2460 10.1016/j.jtha.2023.04.038 37182696

138. Hron G. Kollars M. Weber H. Sagaster V. Quehenberger P. Eichinger S. Kyrle P.A. Weltermann A. Tissue factor-positive microparticles: Cellular origin and association with coagulation activation in patients with colorectal cancer Thromb. Haemost. 2007 97 119 123 10.1160/TH06-03-0141 17200778

139. Tesselaar M.E. Romijn F.P. Van Der Linden I.K. Prins F.A. Bertina R.M. Osanto S. Microparticle-associated tissue factor activity: A link between cancer and thrombosis? J. Thromb. Haemost. 2007 5 520 527 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02369.x 17166244

140. Cui C.J. Wang G.J. Yang S. Huang S.K. Qiao R. Cui W. Tissue Factor-bearing MPs and the risk of venous thrombosis in cancer patients: A meta-analysis Sci. Rep. 2018 8 1675 10.1038/s41598-018-19889-8 29374212 PMC5786054

141. Ay C. Freyssinet J.M. Sailer T. Vormittag R. Pabinger I. Circulating procoagulant microparticles in patients with venous thromboembolism Thromb. Res. 2009 123 724 726 10.1016/j.thromres.2008.09.005 18995886

142. Bal L. Ederhy S. Di Angelantonio E. Toti F. Zobairi F. Dufaitre G. Meuleman C. Mallat Z. Boccara F. Tedgui A. Factors influencing the level of circulating procoagulant microparticles in acute pulmonary embolism Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2010 103 394 403 10.1016/j.acvd.2010.06.005 20800803

143. Ye R. Ye C. Huang Y. Liu L. Wang S. Circulating tissue factor positive microparticles in patients with acute recurrent deep venous thrombosis Thromb. Res. 2012 130 253 258 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.10.014 22099707

144. Hisada Y. Alexander W. Kasthuri R. Voorhees P. Mobarrez F. Taylor A. McNamara C. Wallen H. Witkowski M. Key N.S. Measurement of microparticle tissue factor activity in clinical samples: A summary of two tissue factor-dependent FXa generation assays Thromb. Res. 2016 139 90 97 10.1016/j.thromres.2016.01.011 26916302 PMC10821530

145. He S. Antovic A. A simple and rapid laboratory method for determination of haemostasis potential in plasma: II. Modifications for use in routine laboratories and research work Thromb. Res. 2001 103 355 361 10.1016/S0049-3848(01)00332-2 11553368

146. Eichinger S. Hron G. Kollars M. Kyrle P.A. Prediction of recurrent venous thromboembolism by endogenous thrombin potential and D-dimer Clin. Chem. 2008 54 2042 2048 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112243 18948369

147. Tripodi A. Legnani C. Chantarangkul V. Cosmi B. Palareti G. Mannucci P.M. High thrombin generation measured in the presence of thrombomodulin is associated with an increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism J. Thromb. Haemost. 2008 6 1327 1333 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03018.x 18485081

148. van Hylckama Vlieg A. Christiansen S.C. Luddington R. Cannegieter S.C. Rosendaal F.R. Baglin T.P. Elevated endogenous thrombin potential is associated with an increased risk of a first deep venous thrombosis but not with the risk of recurrence Br. J. Haematol. 2007 138 769 774 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06738.x 17760809

149. van Hylckama Vlieg A. Baglin C.A. Luddington R. MacDonald S. Rosendaal F.R. Baglin T.P. The risk of a first and a recurrent venous thrombosis associated with an elevated D-dimer level and an elevated thrombin potential: Results of the THE-VTE study J. Thromb. Haemost. 2015 13 1642 1652 10.1111/jth.13043 26178257

150. Wang J. Lim H.Y. Brook R. Lai J. Nandurkar H. Ho P. Overall haemostatic potential (OHP) assay can risk stratify for venous thromboembolism recurrence in anticoagulated patients J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2023 55 32 41 10.1007/s11239-022-02686-6 35908244 PMC9925515

151. McLeod B. Lim H.Y. Nandurkar H. Ho P. Wang J. Overall Hemostatic Potential Assay Detects Risk of Progression to Post-Thrombotic Syndrome in Anticoagulated Patients following Deep Vein Thrombosis Diagnostics 2022 12 3165 10.3390/diagnostics12123165 36553172 PMC9777627

152. Mullier F. Bailly N. Chatelain C. Chatelain B. Dogné J.M. Pre-analytical issues in the measurement of circulating microparticles: Current recommendations and pending questions J. Thromb. Haemost. 2013 11 693 696 10.1111/jth.12171 23410207

153. Feng F. Thompson M.P. Thomas B.E. Duffy E.R. Kim J. Kurosawa S. Tashjian J.Y. Wei Y. Andry C. Stearns-Kurosawa D.J. A computational solution to improve biomarker reproducibility during long-term projects PLoS ONE 2019 14 e0209060 10.1371/journal.pone.0209060 30995241 PMC6469750

154. Mudrik A. Efros O. Artificial Intelligence and Venous Thromboembolism: A Narrative Review of Applications, Benefits, and Limitations Acta Haematol. 2025 148 556 565 10.1159/000545760 40199255 PMC12091960

155. Chiasakul T. Lam B.D. McNichol M. Robertson W. Rosovsky R.P. Lake L. Vlachos I.S. Adamski A. Reyes N. Abe K. Artificial intelligence in the prediction of venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and pooled analysis Eur. J. Haematol. 2023 111 951 962 10.1111/ejh.14110 37794526 PMC10900245

156. Ma R. Yu W. Tian J. Tang Y. Fang H. Ming X. Liu H. Machine Learning in the Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J. Med. Internet Res. 2025 27 e77339 10.2196/77339 41433036 PMC12724482

157. Yang Y.J. Yan H.B. Liu W.T. Yang Z.C. Wang X.H. Liu C. Zhang Y.N. Wang J. Yao J.P. He H. Application of machine learning to predict the occurrence of venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized for coronary artery disease: A single-center retrospective study Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2025 12 1610938 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1610938 41393263 PMC12698578

158. Meng L. Wei T. Fan R. Su H. Liu J. Wang L. Huang X. Qi Y. Li X. Development and validation of a machine learning model to predict venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients Asia Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2022 9 100128 10.1016/j.apjon.2022.100128 36276886 PMC9583033

159. Chen C. Hu Z. Xu Q. Yuan L. Yuan Y. Zheng X. Lei H. Development and validation of machine learning models for assessing the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism in cervical cancer patients Sci. Rep. 2025 15 45561 10.1038/s41598-025-29761-1 41309992 PMC12749271

160. Al Raizah A. Alrizah M. Artificial intelligence in thrombosis: Transformative potential and emerging challenges Thromb. J. 2025 23 2 10.1186/s12959-025-00690-3 39825337 PMC11740475

161. Lam B.D. Dodge L.E. Zerbey S. Robertson W. Rosovsky R.P. Lake L. Datta S. Elavakanar P. Adamski A. Reyes N. The potential use of artificial intelligence for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and management: Clinician and healthcare informatician perspectives Sci. Rep. 2024 14 12010 10.1038/s41598-024-62535-9 38796561 PMC11127994