ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Comparing Atrial-Fibrillation Validated Rapid Scoring Systems in the Long-Term Mortality Prediction in Patients Referred for Elective Coronary Angiography: A Subanalysis of the Białystok Coronary Project.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid scoring systems validated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) may be useful beyond their original purpose. Our aim was to assess the utility of CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS−BLED, and 2MACE scores in predicting long-term mortality in the population of the Białystok Coronary Project, including AF patients. The initial study population consisted of 7409 consecutive patients admitted for elective coronary angiography between 2007 and 2016. The study endpoint was all-cause mortality, which occurred in 1244 (16.8%) patients during the follow-up, ranging from 1283 to 3059 days (median 2029 days). We noticed substantially increased all-cause mortality in patients with higher values of all compared scores. The accuracy of the scores in predicting all-cause mortality was also assessed using the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. The greatest predictive value for mortality was recorded for the CHA2DS2-VASc score in the overall study population (area under curve [AUC] = 0.665; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.645−0.681). We observed that the 2MACE score (AUC = 0.656; 95%CI 0.619−0.681), but not the HAS−BLED score, had similar predictive value to the CHA2DS2-VASc score for all-cause mortality in the overall study population. In AF patients, all scores did not differ in all-cause mortality prediction. Additionally, we found that study participants with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 vs. <3 had a 3-fold increased risk of long-term all-cause mortality (odds ratio 3.05; 95%CI 2.6−3.6). Our study indicates that clinical scores initially validated in AF patients may be useful for predicting mortality in a broader population (e.g., in patients referred for elective coronary angiography). According to our findings, all compared scores have a moderate predictive value. However, in our study, the CHA2DS2-VASc and 2MACE scores outperformed the HAS−BLED score in terms of the long-term all-cause mortality prediction.
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.