Evaluation of the HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and ORBIT Bleeding Risk Scores in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Taking Warfarin - 22/05/16
Abstract |
Objectives |
Various bleeding risk prediction schemes, such as the Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized Ratio, Elderly, Drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED), Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA), and Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment (ORBIT) scores, have been proposed in patients with atrial fibrillation. We compared the relative predictive values of these bleeding risk scores for clinically relevant bleeding and the relationship of ATRIA and ORBIT scores to the quality of anticoagulation control on warfarin, as reflected by time in therapeutic range.
Methods |
We conducted a post hoc ancillary analysis of clinically relevant bleeding and major bleeding events among 2293 patients receiving warfarin therapy in the AMADEUS trial.
Results |
Only HAS-BLED was significantly predictive for clinically relevant bleeding, and all 3 risk scores were predictive for major bleeding. The predictive performance of HAS-BLED was modest, as reflected by c-indexes of 0.59 (P < .001) and 0.65 (P < .002) for clinically relevant bleeding and major bleeding, respectively. The HAS-BLED score performed better than the ATRIA (P = .002) or ORBIT (P = .001) score in predicting any clinically relevant bleeding. Only the HAS-BLED score was significantly associated with the risk for both bleeding outcomes on Cox regression analysis (any clinically relevant bleeding: hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.40, P < .001; major bleeding: hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.52; P = .007). There were strong inverse correlations of ATRIA and ORBIT scores to time in therapeutic range as a continuous variable (low risk ATRIA, r = −0.96; P = .003; ORBIT, r = −0.96; P = .003). Improvement in the predictive performance for both ATRIA and ORBIT scores for any clinically relevant bleeding was achieved by adding time in therapeutic range to both scores, with significant differences in c-indexes (P = .001 and P = .002, respectively), net reclassification improvement, and integrated discriminant improvement (both P < .001).
Conclusions |
All 3 bleeding risk prediction scores demonstrated modest predictive ability for bleeding outcomes, although the HAS-BLED score performed better than the ATRIA or ORBIT score. Significant improvements in both ATRIA and ORBIT score prediction performances were achieved by adding time in therapeutic range to both scores.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Anticoagulation, ATRIA, Bleeding, HAS-BLED, ORBIT, Risk assessment
Plan
Funding: Sanofi SA provided the study dataset. The analysis of the dataset was conducted fully independent of any industry or other grant support. |
|
Conflict of Interest: DAL reports investigator-initiated educational grants from Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; is on the Speaker's Bureau for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer; and is a Steering Committee member of a Bristol-Myers Squibb Phase IV trial. GYHL is a consultant for Bayer/Jensen, Merck, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and is on the Speaker's Bureau for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. |
|
Authorship: All authors had access to the data and played a role in writing this manuscript. |
Vol 129 - N° 6
P. 600-607 - juin 2016 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?