ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparison of bleeding risk scores and evaluation of major bleeding predictive factors in patients with major bleeding due to vitamin K antagonist use.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Major bleeding in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is closely associated with an increased risk of death and major adverse outcomes in both the short and long term, but all bleeding events are associated with a reduced quality of life. Bleeding events are also known to reduce medication adherence. In this sense, bleeding risk scores are important tools to help predict major bleeding. However, it is not clear which scoring system is superior. Aim: In this study, our aim was to compare bleeding risk scores and to examine the factors associated with bleeding in patients with major bleeding while using vitamin K antagonists. Methods: In this retrospective and single-center study, scoring, laboratory and demographic data were analyzed with SPSS 20.0 statistical program. Results: The mean age of a total of 1434 patients included in our study was 68.2 ± 11.3 years, range was 39-93 years and 769 (53.6%) of these patients were male. Of 588 patients with major bleeding, 93 (15.8%) had intracranial hemorrhage. Logistic regression analysis comparing the scoring systems among themselves revealed that the GARFIELD-AF scoring system had a predictive effect on major bleeding independent of the effect of other scoring systems (OR: 1.532, 95% CI 1.348-1.741, p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for GARFIELD-AF was 0.690 (0.662-0.718) as a result of the ROC analysis considering the best cut-off point of 3.2% calculated for 2 years. AUC 0.659 (0.630-0.687) for HAS-BLED, AUC 0.636 (0.606-0.665) for ORBIT and AUC 0.611 (0.5810.642) for ATRIA. When we compare the patient group with the control group, it can be said that intracranial hemorrhage occurred independently of INR and TTR values, unlike in the major bleeding group (p:0.129, p:0.545). Conclusion: In patients using vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation, the GARFIELD-AF risk score was found to be superior to important bleeding risk scores such as HAS-BLED, ORBIT and ATRIA in terms of predicting major bleeding. It is an important result that intracranial hemorrhages, which have a special place among major hemorrhages, were independent of INR and TTR levels. It is noteworthy that 8.2% of patients with major bleeding had a history of minor bleeding in the last year.
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.