Key result
AF thromboembolism risk assessment requires combining established clinical scores with renal dysfunction and biomarkers.
Why the study?
The significance of individual risk factors in CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores is controversial, their performance is modest, and several other risk factors are not included.
Highlights the need for an integrated approach to stroke risk assessment in atrial fibrillation beyond standard CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores.
May enhance AF thromboembolism risk stratification beyond standard scores; leaves open prospective validation of integrated models.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of thromboembolism, and risk assessment for thromboembolism is necessary for the management of AF patients. CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores have been adopted in international guidelines for AF management, but the significance of each risk factor included in these risk scores are sometimes controversial, and the performance of these scores is only modest. There are several other risk factors not included in the scores such as renal dysfunction, low body weight, type of AF (paroxysmal or non-paroxysmal) as well as echocardiographic parameters and blood biomarkers, and physicians should assess patients risk in an integrated manner.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kodani et al. (2020) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Risk assessment for thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation requires an integrated approach combining established clinical scores with additional risk factors like renal dysfunction and biomarkers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: