Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011
Performance of stroke risk scores in older people with atrial fibrillation not taking warfarin: comparative cohort study from BAFTA trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relation Classification for Bleeding Events From Electronic Health Records Using Deep Learning Systems: An Empirical Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Bleeding Entity Recognition in Electronic Health Records: A Comprehensive Analysis of End-to-End Systems.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020Article
- The Utilization of Antithrombotic Therapy in Older Patients in Aged Care Facilities With Atrial Fibrillation.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2018Article
- Impact of Triple Therapy in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.PloS one · 2016Article
- Prospective national study of the prevalence, incidence, management and outcome of a large contemporary cohort of patients with incident non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2015Article
- Research into practice: management of atrial fibrillation in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Article
- Novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a focus on the older patient.International journal of general medicine · 2013Article
- Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation in older people with atrial fibrillation - a pragmatic approach.Aging and disease · 2012Article
- Can we predict stroke in atrial fibrillation?Clinical cardiology · 2012Review
- Atrial Fibrillation Associated with Heart Failure, Stroke and Mortality.Journal of atrial fibrillationReview
- Adverse Outcomes from Atrial Fibrillation;Mechanisms, Risks, and Insights Learned from Therapeutic Options.Journal of atrial fibrillationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the predictive power of the main existing and recently proposed schemes for stratification of risk of stroke in older patients with atrial fibrillation.
designComparative cohort study of eight risk stratification scores.
settingTrial of thromboprophylaxis in stroke, the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation in the Aged (BAFTA) trial.
participants665 patients aged 75 or over with atrial fibrillation based in the community who were randomised to the BAFTA trial and were not taking warfarin throughout or for part of the study period.
main outcome measuresEvents rates of stroke and thromboembolism.
results54 (8%) patients had an ischaemic stroke, four (0.6%) had a systemic embolism, and 13 (2%) had a transient ischaemic attack. The distribution of patients classified into the three risk categories (low, moderate, high) was similar across three of the risk stratification scores (revised CHADS(2), NICE, ACC/AHA/ESC), with most patients categorised as high risk (65-69%, n = 460-457) and the remaining classified as moderate risk. The original CHADS(2) (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes, previous Stroke) score identified the lowest number as high risk (27%, n = 180). The incremental risk scores of CHADS(2), Rietbrock modified CHADS(2), and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc (CHA(2)DS(2)-Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex) failed to show an increase in risk at the upper range of scores. The predictive accuracy was similar across the tested schemes with C statistic ranging from 0.55 (original CHADS(2)) to 0.62 (Rietbrock modified CHADS(2)), with all except the original CHADS(2) predicting better than chance. Bootstrapped paired comparisons provided no evidence of significant differences between the discriminatory ability of the schemes.
conclusionsBased on this single trial population, current risk stratification schemes in older people with atrial fibrillation have only limited ability to predict the risk of stroke. Given the systematic undertreatment of older people with anticoagulation, and the relative safety of warfarin versus aspirin in those aged over 70, there could be a pragmatic rationale for classifying all patients over 75 as "high risk" until better tools are available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.