Why the study?
Does the CHA2DS2-VASc score perform better than CHADS2 for predicting thromboembolism, and how does HAS-BLED perform for bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does the CHA2DS2-VASc score perform better than CHADS2 for predicting thromboembolism, and how does HAS-BLED perform for bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation?
The CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores are effective and practical tools for predicting thromboembolism and bleeding risks in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Supports CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED for AF risk stratification; extends validation but leaves open outcome trials.
Several independent risk factors (prior ICH, myocardial infarction, vascular disease, and renal failure) predict ischaemic stroke and/or the composite thromboembolism endpoint in AF, but thyroid disease (or hyperthyroidism) was not an independent risk factor for stroke. There is a better performance for CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc over CHADS(2) schemes for the composite thromboembolism endpoint. While both tested bleeding risk schemes have similar predictive value, the HAS-BLED score has the advantage of simplicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Friberg et al. (2012) studied this question.