ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2016
How Well Do Stroke Risk Scores Predict Hemorrhage in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation?
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the HAS-BLED Bleeding Score in VKA- or DOAC-Treated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Individualised prediction of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with anticoagulation.PloS one · 2024Article
- Practice Patterns and Outcomes Associated With Anticoagulation Use Following Sepsis Hospitalizations With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The decision to use anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation depends on comparing a patient's estimated risk of stroke to their bleeding risk. Several of the risk factors in the stroke risk schemes overlap with hemorrhage risk. We compared how well 2 stroke risk scores (CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc) and 2 hemorrhage risk scores (the ATRIA bleeding score and the HAS-BLED score) predicted major hemorrhage on and off warfarin in a cohort of 13,559 community-dwelling adults with AF. Over a cumulative 64,741 person-years of follow-up, we identified a total of 777 incident major hemorrhage events. The ATRIA bleeding score had the highest predictive ability of all the scores in patients on warfarin (c-index of 0.74 [0.72 to 0.76] compared with 0.65 [0.62 to 0.67] for CHADS2, 0.65 [0.62 to 0.67] for CHA2DS2-VASc, and 0.64 [0.61 to 0.66] for HAS-BLED) and in those off warfarin (0.77 [0.74 to 0.79] compared with 0.67 [0.64 to 0.71] for CHADS2, 0.67 [0.64 to 0.70] for CHA2DS2-VASc, and 0.68 [0.65 to 0.71] for HAS-BLED). In conclusion, although CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke scores were better at predicting hemorrhage than chance alone, they were inferior to the ATRIA bleeding score. Our study supports the use of dedicated hemorrhage risk stratification tools to predict major hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation.
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.