Molnar Amber O, Sood Manish M
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Semin Dial. 2018 Jan;31(1):37-47. doi: 10.1111/sdi.12637. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
Whether to anticoagulate dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation is a common clinical dilemma with limited high-quality data to inform decision-making. While the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation has long been debated and remains unclear, the more upstream issue of stroke risk assessment from atrial fibrillation has received relatively little attention. In the general population, a handful of risk scores to help predict stroke and hemorrhage risk in the setting of atrial fibrillation are widely validated and applied in clinical practice. But are they applicable to the dialysis population? The most commonly used stroke risk scores, CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASC, have limited validation in the dialysis population, and when validated, have shown poor performance (c-statistics <0.70). Stroke risk scores derived in the general atrial fibrillation population may perform poorly in dialysis patients for a number of reasons. Dialysis patients have unique stroke risk factors, such as chronic inflammation and vascular calcification, and a much higher competing risk of death, none of which are accounted for in current risk scores. Further complicating the dilemma of anticoagulation is hemorrhage risk, which is known to be exceedingly high in dialysis patients. Currently available hemorrhage risk scores, such as HAS-BLED, have not been validated in dialysis patients and will likely underestimate hemorrhage risk. Moving forward, risk tools specific to the dialysis population are needed to accurately assess and balance stroke and hemorrhage risks in dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation.
对于房颤透析患者是否进行抗凝治疗是一个常见的临床难题,目前高质量数据有限,难以指导决策。虽然房颤透析患者抗凝预防卒中的有效性和安全性长期以来一直存在争议且仍不明确,但房颤卒中风险评估这个更上游的问题相对较少受到关注。在普通人群中,有一些有助于预测房颤患者卒中及出血风险的风险评分已得到广泛验证并应用于临床实践。但它们适用于透析人群吗?最常用的卒中风险评分CHADS2和CHA2DS2-VASC在透析人群中的验证有限,即便经过验证,其表现也较差(c统计量<0.70)。在普通房颤人群中得出的卒中风险评分在透析患者中可能表现不佳,原因有很多。透析患者有独特的卒中风险因素,如慢性炎症和血管钙化,且死亡的竞争风险高得多,而目前的风险评分均未考虑这些因素。使抗凝困境更加复杂的是出血风险,众所周知,透析患者的出血风险极高。目前可用的出血风险评分,如HAS-BLED,尚未在透析患者中得到验证,很可能会低估出血风险。展望未来,需要针对透析人群的风险工具来准确评估和平衡房颤透析患者的卒中和出血风险。