Why the study?
Does adding time in therapeutic range (TTR) improve the predictive value of bleeding risk scores in patients with atrial fibrillation on vitamin K antagonists?
Does adding time in therapeutic range (TTR) improve the predictive value of bleeding risk scores in patients with atrial fibrillation on vitamin K antagonists?
Adding time in therapeutic range (TTR <65%) to established bleeding risk scores improves their predictive value for major bleeding in AF patients on VKAs, though HAS-BLED remains the best performing score.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adding TTR improves ATRIA/ORBIT/HEMORR2HAGES prediction in VKA-treated AF; leaves open whether modified scores alter decisions.
Bleeding risk with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is closely related to the quality of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, reflected by time in therapeutic range (TTR). Here we compared the discrimination performance of different bleeding risk scores and investigated if adding TTR would improve their predictive value and clinical usefulness. We included 1361 AF patients stables on VKA for at least 6 months. Bleeding risk was assessed by the HAS-BLED, ATRIA, ORBIT and HEMORR 2 HAGES scores. Major bleeding events were recorded after a median of 6.5 years follow-up. In this period 250 patients suffered major bleeds. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves demonstrated that HAS-BLED had the best discrimination performance, but adding the ‘labile INR’ criteria (i.e. TTR <65%) to ATRIA, ORBIT and HEMORR 2 HAGES increased their ability of discrimination and predictive value, with significant improvements in reclassification and discriminatory performance. Decision curve analyses (DCA) showed improvements of the clinical usefulness and a net benefit of the modified risk scores. In summary, in AF patients taking VKAs, the HAS-BLED score had the best predictive ability. Adding ‘labile INR’ to ATRIA, ORBIT and HEMORR 2 HAGES improved their predictive value for major bleeding leading to improved clinical usefulness compared to the original scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rivera‐Caravaca et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: