Cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) are all over the news these days. CBD is legal everywhere, and it seems that more states are legalizing cannabis every few months. There are a few hints in PubMed that cannabinoids (THC) may have some impact on clotting, possibly causing hypercoagulability.
The group at the University of Arizona in Tucson decided to look into this in trauma patients. They did a two year scan of the TQIP database and stratified patients based on their THC status. They matched up THC positive and negative patients and examined thromboembolic events (deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, MI) and mortality.
Here are the factoids:
- Nearly 600,000 patients records were in the database pull, but only 226 patients were THC+
- They were matched at a 1:2 ratio with similar THC – patients (452)
- No differences were found in the usual demographics, injury severity, use of DVT prophylaxis, and hospital length of stay
- The THC+ group had a significantly higher incidence of overal thromboembolic complications (9% vs 3%)
- Both DVT ( 7% vs 2%) and PE (2.2% vs 0.2%) were significantly higher in the THC+ group
- No differences were seen in strokes or MI
The authors concluded that THC increases the risk of DVT and PE and that early identification and treatment for thromboembolic complications is required to improve outcomes in this high risk subset of trauma patients.
My comment: Seems compelling, right? But this is one of those abstracts that you have to read really closely. You have two groups of patients that are being compared, and a few statistical differences were found. The groups are small, but even so these differences are great enough to reach statistical significance. Great!
But, now step back and look carefully at the larger patient group. There are almost 600,000 patients there, but am I to believe that only 226 patients (0.04%) were using cannabis? According to recent statistics, approximately 8% of the US population currently uses marijuana. So in theory, about 47,500 patients in the TQIP sample should have tested positive. For whatever reason, this data point was not collected. Could data from the other 47,274 have changed the study result? Probably.
Here are my questions for the authors and presenter:
- What was the impetus for this study? I was not aware of clotting issues due to THC and there is little in the published literature. I’d love to hear some history and be able to read more about this.
- What about the long time interval that a patient will test THC+ after partaking? THC remains in body fat for a month or more, and the qualitative test commonly used will provide a positive for weeks after the last use. How long do the thrombogenic effects of THC last? The THC+ result recorded in the dataset could be from THC use well before the traumatic event.
- How do you think your small sample of THC+ patients impacts your results given the much larger number of expected marijuana users in the sample?
This is intriguing work. Let’s here more!
Reference: Impact of marijuana on venous thromboembolic events: cannabinoids cause clots in trauma patients. EAST Annual Assembly abstract #4, 2020.