Barnes Geoffrey D, Gu Xiaokui, Haymart Brian, Kline-Rogers Eva, Almany Steve, Kozlowski Jay, Besley Dennis, Krol Gregory D, Froehlich James B, Kaatz Scott
Cardiovascular Center, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cardiovascular Center, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI.
Thromb Res. 2014 Aug;134(2):294-9. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.05.034. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
Guidelines recommend the assessment of stroke and bleeding risk before initiating warfarin anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Many of the elements used to predict stroke also overlap with bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation patients and it is tempting to use stroke risk scores to efficiently estimate bleeding risk. Comparison of stroke risk scores to bleeding risk scores to predict bleeding has not been thoroughly assessed.
2600 patients followed at seven anticoagulation clinics were followed from October 2009-May 2013. Five risk models (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, HEMORR2HAGES, HAS-BLED and ATRIA) were retrospectively applied to each patient. The primary outcome was the first major bleeding event. Area under the ROC curves were compared with C statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI) analysis was performed.
110 patients experienced a major bleeding event in 2581.6 patient-years (4.5%/year). Mean follow up was 1.0±0.8years. All of the formal bleeding risk scores had a modest predictive value for first major bleeding events (C statistic 0.66-0.69), performing better than CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores (C statistic difference 0.10 - 0.16). NRI analysis demonstrated a 52-69% and 47-64% improvement of the formal bleeding risk scores over the CHADS2 score and CHA2DS2-VASc score, respectively.
The CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores did not perform as well as formal bleeding risk scores for prediction of major bleeding in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with warfarin. All three bleeding risk scores (HAS-BLED, ATRIA and HEMORR2HAGES) performed moderately well.
指南建议在房颤患者开始使用华法林抗凝治疗前评估其卒中及出血风险。许多用于预测卒中的因素也与房颤患者的出血风险重叠,因此人们倾向于使用卒中风险评分来有效估计出血风险。尚未对卒中风险评分与出血风险评分预测出血情况进行全面评估。
对2009年10月至2013年5月在7家抗凝门诊随访的2600例患者进行研究。对每位患者回顾性应用5种风险模型(CHADS2、CHA2DS2-VASc、HEMORR2HAGES、HAS-BLED和ATRIA)。主要结局为首次发生的大出血事件。将ROC曲线下面积与C统计量进行比较,并进行净重新分类改善(NRI)分析。
在2581.6患者年中,110例患者发生了大出血事件(每年4.5%)。平均随访时间为1.0±0.8年。所有正式的出血风险评分对首次大出血事件均有一定的预测价值(C统计量为0.66 - 0.69),其表现优于CHADS2和CHA2DS2-VASc评分(C统计量差异为0.10 - 0.16)。NRI分析显示,正式出血风险评分相对于CHADS2评分和CHA2DS2-VASc评分分别有52% - 69%和47% - 64%的改善。
对于接受华法林治疗的非瓣膜性房颤患者,CHADS2和CHA2DS2-VASc评分在预测大出血方面不如正式的出血风险评分。三种出血风险评分(HAS-BLED、ATRIA和HEMORR2HAGES)表现中等良好。