ArticleClinical cardiology2022
Atrial fibrillation bleeding risk and prediction while treated with direct oral anticoagulants in warfarin-naïve or warfarin-experienced patients.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), bleeding risk scores provide only modest discrimination for major or intracranial bleeding. However, warfarin experience may impact HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly (>65 years), Drugs/alcohol concomitantly) score performance in patients evaluated for DOACs, as HAS-BLED was derived and validated in warfarin cohorts.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients prescribed DOAC for AF in the Veterans Health Administration between 2010 and 2017. We determined modified HAS-BLED score discrimination and calibration for bleeding, for patients treated with DOAC, stratified by prior warfarin exposure. We also determined the association between DOAC-warfarin-naïve status to bleeding (nonintracranial and intracranial) with DOAC-warfarin-experienced patients as reference.
resultsThe DOAC analysis cohort included 100, 492 patients with AF (age [mean ± SD]: 72.9 ± 9.6 years; 1.7% female; 90.1% White), of which 26, 760 patients (26.6%) and 73, 732 patients (73.4%) were warfarin experienced or naïve, respectively. HAS-BLED discrimination for bleeds was modest for patients treated with DOAC, regardless of prior warfarin experience (concordance statistics: 0.53-0.59). For DOAC-warfarin-naïve patients, as compared to DOAC-warfarin-experienced patients, adjusted risk of intracranial bleeding was lower, while risk of nonintracranial bleeding was higher (intracranial bleeding propensity adjusted with inverse probability of treatment weights [IPTWs]: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.95, p = .0040) (nonintracranial bleeding propensity adjusted with IPTW: HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.11-1.19, p < .0001).
conclusionPatients' modified HAS-BLED score at the time of DOAC initiation, regardless of prior warfarin use, provided only modest discrimination for intracranial and nonintracranial bleeds. These data argue against maintaining DOAC eligible patients on warfarin therapy regardless of modified HAS-BLED score.
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.