Edinburgh Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 21;7(12):e017157. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017157.
To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks.
The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHADS-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF).
Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk.
The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHADS-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHADS-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHADS-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHADS-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHADS-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74).
Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHADS-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710).
提供一种准确的、基于网络的工具,根据死亡率、中风和出血风险,对房颤患者进行分层,以帮助做出潜在抗凝治疗的获益/风险决策。
使用逐步回归法开发新工具,并应用于低风险患者。采用 30 倍交叉验证的 C 统计量与 CHADS2-VASc 进行比较,以控制过度拟合。外部验证在独立数据集 Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation(ORBIT-AF)中进行。
前瞻性 GARFIELD-AF 注册研究中的 39898 名患者的数据为预测中风风险、死亡率和出血风险的综合风险工具的推导和验证提供了依据。
GARFIELD-AF 风险模型的判别值优于 CHADS2-VASc,无论是在接受或不接受抗凝治疗的患者中。全因死亡率、缺血性中风/系统性栓塞和出血性中风/大出血(治疗患者)的 C 统计量(95%CI)分别为:GARFIELD-AF 风险模型为 0.77(0.76-0.78)、0.69(0.67-0.71)和 0.66(0.62-0.69),而 CHADS2-VASc 分别为 0.66(0.64-0.67)、0.64(0.61-0.66)和 0.64(0.61-0.68),对于 HAS-BLED(出血)。在极低至低风险患者(CHADS2-VASc 0 或 1(男性)和 1 或 2(女性))中,CHADS2-VASc 和 HAS-BLED(出血)评分对死亡率、中风/系统性栓塞和大出血的判别值较弱。GARFIELD-AF 风险工具的 C 统计量分别为 0.69(0.64-0.75)、0.65(0.56-0.73)和 0.60(0.47-0.73),而 CHADS2-VASc 分别为 0.50(0.45-0.55)、0.59(0.50-0.67)和 0.55(0.53-0.56)。在 ORBIT-AF 人群中的验证中,C 统计量表明,GARFIELD-AF 风险工具对于使用全模型和简化模型预测全因死亡率的 1 年死亡率是有效的:C 统计量分别为 0.75(0.73-0.77)和 0.75(0.73-0.77),对于预测 1 年任何中风或系统性栓塞,C 统计量为 0.68(0.62-0.74)。
与 CHADS2-VASc 相比,GARFIELD-AF 风险工具在预测中风和死亡率方面的表现优于 HAS-BLED(出血),在整体和低风险患者中均优于 HAS-BLED(出血)。GARFIELD-AF 工具有可能被纳入常规电子系统,并首次允许同时评估缺血性中风、死亡率和出血风险。
网址:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov。GARFIELD-AF(NCT01090362)和 ORBIT-AF(NCT01165710)的唯一标识符。