Key result
This text is a journal masthead and contains no clinical study findings.
While bleeding risk scores have modest predictive ability, they are useful clinical tools for identifying modifiable risk factors and guiding individualized anticoagulation decisions when paired with thrombosis risk assessment.
Masthead text yields no findings; leaves open all questions on bleeding risk scores for anticoagulation.
Anticoagulant medications are frequently used to prevent and treat thromboembolic disease. However, the benefits of anticoagulants must be balanced with a careful assessment of the risk of bleeding complications that can ensue from their use. Several bleeding risk scores are available, including the Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index, HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and HEMORR2HAGES risk assessment tools, and can be used to help estimate patients' risk for bleeding on anticoagulants. These tools vary by their individual risk components and in how they define and weigh clinical factors. However, it is not yet clear how best to integrate bleeding risk tools into clinical practice. Current bleeding risk scores generally have modest predictive ability and limited ability to predict the most devastating complication of anticoagulation, intracranial hemorrhage. In clinical practice, bleeding risk tools should be paired with a formal determination of thrombosis risk, as their results may be most influential for patients at the lower end of thrombosis risk, as well as for highlighting potentially modifiable risk factors for bleeding. Use of bleeding risk scores may assist clinicians and patients in making informed and individualized anticoagulation decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parks et al. (2017) studied this question. This text is a journal masthead and contains no clinical study findings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: