Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 25;12:1758835920909660. doi: 10.1177/1758835920909660

Table 3.

Risk of PE, DVT, CAD and CVD of AI treatment compared with TAM treatment in postmenopausal woman.

Hazard ratio estimates
Outcome Subtype Number of events Unadjusted HR (95%CI) Adjusted HR (95%CI)
TEEs PE TAM
AI
7
93
1.77 (0.82–3.82) 1.91 (0.88–4.13)
DVT TAM
AI
42
252
0.92 (0.68–1.24) 0.81 (0.58–1.13)
CVEs CAD TAM
AI
32
260
1.02 (0.71–1.47) 1.12 (0.77–1.62)
CVD TAM
AI
1
11
1.02 (0.71–1.48) 1.49 (0.19–11.66)
Competing risk estimates
Outcome Subtype Number of events Unadjusted SHR (95%CI) Adjusted SHR (95%CI)
TEEs PE TAM
AI
7
93
1.91 (0.88–4.12) 2.15 (0.99–4.64)
DVT TAM
AI
42
252
0.84 (0.61–1.17) 0.89 (0.64–1.24)
CVEs CAD TAM
AI
32
260
1.12 (0.77–1.61) 1.29 (0.89–1.87)
CVD TAM
AI
1
11
1.52 (0.20–11.76) 1.75 (0.22–13.71)

Adjusted results were obtained using continuous PS estimates.

AI, aromatase inhibitors; CAD, coronary artery disease; CI, confidence interval; CVD, cerebrovascular diseases, including stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage; CVEs, cardiovascular events; DVT, deep vein thrombosis, phlebitis and thrombophlebitis; HR, hazard ratio; PE, pulmonary embolism; PS, propensity score; SHR, subdistribution hazard ratio; TAM, tamoxifen; TEEs, thromboembolic events.