Hormonal Birth Control and Blood Clots: Risk and Safe Alternatives

Dec 5, 2019
11 min read

Updated: Nov 2

Hormonal birth control remains one of the safest and most effective methods of pregnancy prevention, but estrogen-containing formulations can slightly raise the risk of blood clots. Experts emphasize that while the absolute risk is low, understanding personal factors, such as age, family history, and smoking status, is essential. Modern low-dose contraceptives have dramatically reduced clotting complications, and progestin-only or nonhormonal methods offer safe alternatives for those at higher risk. Physicians urge ongoing dialogue between patients and providers to balance reproductive needs with cardiovascular safety.

Overview

How does hormonal birth control increase the risk of blood clots?

Contraception is not a one-size-fits-all decision. The market offers two broad categories: nonhormonal methods such as condoms, diaphragms, and copper IUDs, which act as mechanical barriers, and hormonal methods such as oral pills, transdermal patches, injections, implants, and vaginal rings, which rely on synthetic hormones to suppress ovulation and regulate menstrual cycles.

While hormonal birth control is often described as “safe for most women,” this statement conceals a universal and biological truth, which makes clear that any formulation containing estrogen—or, to a lesser degree, certain progestins—directly alters the body’s clotting system. These agents raise levels of clotting proteins, decrease natural anticoagulants, and shift the body into a mild but chronic prothrombotic state. In most healthy individuals, this imbalance remains subclinical. In others—particularly those with genetic or acquired clotting disorders—it becomes the spark for catastrophic events like deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE).

In a prior interview conducted by a separate medical agency, Ob/Gyn Ashley Brant, DO, MPH explained, “The risk is small—at most, around 10 in every 10,000 people per year develop clots as a result of estrogen-containing contraception.” She added, “If you’re not using hormonal contraception, your annual risk of developing a venous thromboembolism is roughly 1 to 5 per 10,000. So while estrogen increases that risk, it’s still quite low in absolute terms for most healthy individuals.”

These figures, while statistically accurate, reflect population averages—not individual vulnerability. They assume that every woman shares the same baseline risk, metabolism, and vascular resilience. In reality, millions of women harbor undiagnosed inherited thrombophilia—mutations such as Factor V Leiden, Prothrombin G20210A, or Protein S deficiency—that do not cause disease on their own but create a biological predisposition for clot formation when combined with an external trigger such as pregnancy, surgery, or hormone exposure.

A diagnosed thrombophilia is not a disease in isolation, but a genetic variant that changes how the body regulates coagulation. Most carriers will never develop symptoms unless their physiology is externally challenged. When exposed to estrogen-containing contraception or other prothrombotic stressors, that dormant predisposition can suddenly translate into a twenty- to thirtyfold increase in clot risk. What is presented to patients as “rare” or “unlikely”, therefore, depends entirely on whether that mutation exists—something the current medical model rarely checks.

Despite decades of research, routine thrombophilia testing is almost never performed before prescribing hormones. The reasons are systemic: insurers often deny coverage without a prior clotting event, testing adds to the cost of the appointment, and legacy clinical guidelines—many influenced by outdated data and cost-containment priorities—still frame thrombophilia as “too uncommon to warrant screening.” Yet 5–8 percent of the population carries one of these genetic mutations, meaning that the actual risk pool is vastly undercounted.

This absence of testing distorts the data and the counseling that follows. When untested carriers are excluded from clinical statistics, the apparent risk appears low, giving the false impression that clots are rare, spontaneous, or unpredictable. In reality, they are patterned, measurable, and mechanistically understood. The gap lies not in science but in implementation: medicine still treats thrombosis as a post-event diagnosis rather than a preventable condition.

The result is a system built on statistical reassurance rather than biological precision—a structure that fails to distinguish between a low-risk population and an undiagnosed, and therefore, high-risk. This oversight has produced a generation of women who were told their risk was minimal, until it wasn’t.

The following examines the mechanisms of hormone-induced clot formation in full, integrating the clinical insights of Dr. Ashley Brant, vascular internist Dr. Deborah Hornacek, and independent analyses by the International Women’s Blood Clot Advocates (IWBCA). Together, they underscore what medicine has yet to institutionalize into practice: no hormonal contraceptive is universally safe. True safety lies not in averages, but in individualized biology and in a healthcare system willing to test before it prescribes.

Methodology

How does hormonal birth control contribute to blood clot formation?

Hormonal contraception exists in two primary formulations—combined estrogen–progestin and progestin-only—and both interfere with the body’s delicate hemostatic balance. Estrogen drives the production of coagulation factors II, VII, IX, and X while reducing natural anticoagulants such as protein S and antithrombin, creating a chronic prothrombotic state. Even low-dose formulations increase fibrin generation, platelet activation, and endothelial inflammation, all of which promote clot formation.

Combined methods, which include oral contraceptives, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, contain both hormones, while progestin-only options (the mini-pill, hormonal IUD, implant, or injection) exclude estrogen but continue to affect vascular tone and coagulation dynamics. In a prior interview conducted by a separate medical agency, Dr. Brant noted, “If you want to reduce clotting risk, progestin-only or nonhormonal options are preferred. There are also several progestin-releasing IUDs, as well as a nonhormonal copper IUD that doesn’t influence clotting at all.”

However, the prevailing medical narrative—that these options are “safer”—omits a critical truth: no hormonal therapy is physiologically safe in the presence of elevated clotting risk. Progestin-only regimens may reduce estrogen-related risk, but they do not neutralize it. Research shows that even progestin exposure can increase fibrinogen levels, reduce fibrinolysis, and impair endothelial repair mechanisms, particularly in individuals with genetic or acquired risk factors such as Factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A, obesity, postpartum immobility, autoimmune disease, or vascular injury.

In the same interview, vascular internist Dr. Deborah Hornacek, MD, explained, “Older pills from the 1970s and 1980s contained around 50 micrograms of estrogen, which carried a significantly higher risk. Modern formulations use 20–35 micrograms, and that reduction in estrogen content has made today’s pills much safer.”Dr. Brant added, “The highest estrogen dose prescribed today is about 35 micrograms, and many pills contain as little as 20 micrograms or less. Those lower-dose formulations have markedly reduced clot risk compared to what we saw decades ago.”

Their statements are accurate in relative terms—but incomplete in absolute ones. Modern formulations remain three- to sixfold more likely to trigger venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to nonuse, and for carriers of thrombophilic mutations, the risk can exceed twenty to thirty-fivefold. The underlying biology has not changed, confirming that synthetic hormones—whether estrogenic or progestogenic—disrupt coagulation control and elevate the baseline risk of thrombosis.

What is almost never disclosed to patients is that an estimated 5–8 percent of the general population unknowingly carries a genetic thrombophilia. Routine screening before prescribing hormones is rarely performed, even for women with a family history of clotting, miscarriage, or unexplained stroke. As a result, thousands of women each year are prescribed medications that would be formally contraindicated if their genetic risk were known.

The absence of screening creates the illusion of safety. The absence of warning creates preventable tragedy. In clinical terms, the idea of “safe hormonal therapy” for high-risk or untested women is a medical fiction. Until baseline thrombophilia testing becomes standard and nonhormonal options—such as the copper IUD or barrier methods—are presented as first-line care, medicine will continue to sanction a system where the risk is not reduced; it is merely undiscovered until it’s too late.

Causes

Why does hormonal birth control cause blood clots?

The clots linked to hormonal contraception are not menstrual clots but thrombi—dense, fibrin-rich masses that form within the circulatory system. These clots typically originate in the deep veins of the legs (deep vein thrombosis, DVT) or migrate to the lungs (pulmonary embolism, PE), where they can obstruct blood flow and be fatal. “Sometimes, people confuse blood clots related to birth control with menstrual clots,” explained Dr. Ashley Brant, DO. “But when we talk about clotting risk, we mean clots that form within the circulatory system, those that can travel and block blood flow.”

The link between estrogen-containing contraception and thrombosis has been firmly established for decades. What continues to evolve is the understanding of its cellular mechanism. Estrogen modifies the liver’s synthesis of proteins involved in coagulation, increasing pro-clotting factors (fibrinogen, factors II, VII, IX, and X) while suppressing natural anticoagulants such as protein S and antithrombin III. “Your liver produces dozens of pro-clotting and anti-clotting factors,” noted Dr. Brant. “Estrogen appears to shift that balance by increasing production of pro-coagulant proteins while reducing the very proteins designed to keep clotting in check.”

This shift produces a hypercoagulable state, a blood chemistry primed for thrombosis even in the absence of obvious external injury. A 2023 review in Thrombosis Research confirmed that estrogen’s influence extends beyond hepatic protein synthesis: it also activates platelets and alters endothelial integrity, increasing vascular adhesion and microclot formation. The degree of risk depends on the formulation, dose, and individual susceptibility, yet even the lowest-dose preparations create a measurable biological shift toward coagulation.

Timing plays a critical role. A large cohort analysis published in BMJ (2022) found that the first 6 to 12 months of hormonal contraceptive use carry the highest risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). “That early period is when we see most estrogen-related clots,” explained vascular internist Dr. Deborah Hornacek. “As hormone levels stabilize, the risk decreases somewhat, but it never fully disappears as long as estrogen exposure continues.”

For women with underlying vulnerabilities—such as obesity, smoking, recent surgery, immobility, or undiagnosed thrombophilia—the introduction of synthetic estrogen can transform a latent risk into a life-threatening event. When the genetic and hormonal factors intersect, clotting risk rises exponentially.

In short, hormonal contraceptives do not “cause” clots in isolation but create the biochemical conditions for clot formation. In women with preexisting vascular or genetic susceptibility, that shift is not theoretical. It is the first domino in a predictable biological cascade that medicine continues to underestimate.

Prevention

Can blood clots be prevented?

Preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) requires understanding that vascular health is cumulative. Risk is not defined by a single event or behavior but by how modifiable lifestyle factors interact with hormonal exposure and genetic predisposition over time. The following interventions represent the most consistently validated methods in clinical literature for reducing clot formation in women, particularly those using hormonal contraception or recovering from pregnancy, surgery, or prolonged immobility. Each targets a distinct mechanism within the clotting cascade, addressing inflammation, venous stasis, and endothelial injury—the three physiologic pillars of thrombosis.

Avoid Smoking: Nicotine and carbon monoxide damage endothelial cells and increase platelet aggregation, amplifying the prothrombotic effects of estrogen. Smoking while using hormonal contraception multiplies clot risk severalfold compared to either factor alone.
Maintain a Healthy Weight: Obesity doubles or even triples the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by elevating venous pressure and promoting systemic inflammation. Sustained weight management improves circulation and reduces vascular strain.
Preserve Mobility: Regular movement supports venous return from the legs and prevents blood stasis, a primary contributor to deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Extended immobility—from hospitalization, postoperative recovery, or long-distance travel—temporarily elevates clot risk. As Dr. Ashley Brant, DO, explained, “We commonly think of long car or plane rides as periods where you’re very sedentary. If you’re traveling for several hours, try to get up, stretch, or walk around every hour or two. Even seated, flexing and pumping your legs can help maintain blood flow.”

Some risk factors cannot be changed, but they must still inform contraceptive decisions. Age, family history, hypertension, obesity, autoimmune disease, and migraine with aura are all associated with elevated vascular risk. In the same interview, Dr. Deborah Hornacek advised, “Anyone with a prior clot, a known genetic predisposition, or a condition like thrombophilia should speak with a specialist before starting hormonal birth control.”

While a history of thrombosis does not automatically preclude all hormone use, it demands a precise risk–benefit evaluation. Progestin-only options—including the mini-pill, implant, injection, and certain intrauterine devices—exclude estrogen and therefore carry a significantly lower procoagulant impact. Still, lower is not zero. In carriers of inherited thrombophilia or women in postpartum recovery, even progestin-based methods can aggravate vascular instability.

Dr. Brant had clarified, “People often believed that any form of hormonal birth control was unsafe after a blood clot. That wasn’t always true—progestin-only options could still be appropriate.” Yet, these recommendations were based on population-level data that excluded undiagnosed thrombophilia, meaning the “safe” label reflects limited surveillance rather than absolute protection.

Reassessment

Why is it important to conduct ongoing reassessment for risk over time?

Contraceptive safety has become a moving target defined by evolving physiology, cumulative hormonal exposure, and often, what medicine fails to measure. What begins as “safe” under one clinical snapshot can become dangerous under another. Subtle shifts in blood pressure, inflammation, or metabolic function can recalibrate coagulation pathways without outward symptoms.

As vascular internist Dr. Deborah Hornacek noted in a prior interview, “Hormonal exposure interacts with the entire cardiovascular system, not just the reproductive system. When other conditions develop, that interaction changes, and so should the plan.” This perspective captures a core truth that hormonal risk cannot be confined to gynecology. It is vascular medicine, systemic by nature.

Yet even that framing fails to capture the full complexity of how contraceptive safety evolves. Most women who later develop a clot were never considered high-risk to begin with, simply because risk factors were never assessed. Inherited thrombophilia, for instance, is not a disease but a predisposition that only becomes dangerous in the presence of triggers such as increased estrogen, prolonged immobility, or states of inflammation. Because routine screening is not performed, these silent risks remain invisible until catastrophe forces a diagnosis.

Dr. Ashley Brant, DO, previously advised, “Anytime you’re diagnosed with something new, it’s smart to check in with your provider to ensure your current method is still the right fit.” While sound in theory, this guidance assumes that patients are fully informed about which “new diagnoses” actually matter, or that clinicians are trained to connect conditions like autoimmune disease, long COVID, or postpartum edema to vascular risk. In practice, they are not. The system depends on retrospective recognition, and unfortunately, symptoms often escalate before reassessment is triggered.

This gap between theoretical vigilance and real-world implementation is where preventable harm accumulates. True reassessment must occur proactively. Every new prescription, dose adjustment, and new diagnosis should prompt a structured vascular risk review—particularly in women who are postpartum, perimenopausal, or on hormone therapy. Without that framework, medicine continues to confuse the absence of diagnosis with the absence of risk.

Systems-Based Approach

Why does modern medicine continue to treat blood clots as events to manage rather than conditions to prevent?

A system that treats blood clots as isolated incidents instead of predictable outcomes cannot prevent them. Real prevention requires a systems-based approach that integrates hematology, obstetrics, and cardiology under a shared standard of care. It is not enough to counsel patients on averages or general lifestyle advice; prevention begins with complete vascular profiling before hormones are prescribed, not after complications arise.

A meaningful risk assessment must include:

Personal and family history of clotting disorders: If unknown, baseline thrombophilia testing should be performed before initiating hormonal therapy. Every “unknown” family history is a missed opportunity for prevention.
Current and prior hormone exposure: Estrogen-containing birth control, fertility treatments, and hormone replacement therapy each contribute cumulatively to vascular load. These must be evaluated as a lifetime continuum rather than as isolated episodes.
Periods of immobility, surgery, or postpartum recovery: These are predictable windows of elevated risk that should automatically flag patients for temporary anticoagulation or mechanical prophylaxis.
Coexisting cardiovascular, metabolic, or autoimmune conditions: Lupus, diabetes, thyroid disease, and even severe infections disrupt endothelial integrity and platelet regulation, amplifying hormonal effects.

Dr. Brant summarized in her earlier statement, “Every choice about birth control should involve an informed discussion of personal risk and benefit. Your healthcare provider can help identify the safest and most effective option for your specific situation.”

Yet, as IWBCA research continues to show, “informed discussion” often stops at abstraction. Women are rarely told that standard screening protocols exclude inherited thrombophilia testing, that symptoms like leg pain or breathlessness are often dismissed as anxiety, and that clot risk is documented as “rare” simply because it remains underdiagnosed, not because it is infrequent.

A systems-based prevention model must define safety in terms of measurable physiologic stability rather than the absence of acute events. True safety requires evidence of maintained hemostatic balance under hormonal exposure. This standard demands objective metrics: baseline and interval D-dimer assessment in high-risk users, comprehensive clotting panels before initiating therapy, and systematic post-event surveillance to document and analyze failures in prevention.

A framework that prioritizes convenience, cost, or industry assurance does not constitute prevention. It represents deferred risk management. Ethical care requires data-confirmed, biologically responsive prevention and treatment guided by individual coagulation profiles and vascular response, not by commercial thresholds for acceptable morbidity.

The International Women’s Blood Clot Alliance (IWBCA) provides the information and materials on this site for educational and informational purposes only. The content is not a substitute for professional medical evaluation, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult your physician or another qualified healthcare provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, diagnosis, or course of treatment. Do not disregard, delay, or alter medical advice based on information obtained from this site. If you believe you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency services immediately.