Why the study?
Does the R2CHADS2 score better predict 1-year stroke risk compared to CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc in patients with atrial fibrillation, including those with advanced renal failure?
Does the R2CHADS2 score better predict 1-year stroke risk compared to CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc in patients with atrial fibrillation, including those with advanced renal failure?
The R2CHADS2 score performs better than CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc for predicting stroke risk in the overall AF cohort, though its superiority is attenuated in patients with advanced renal failure.
R2CHADS2 may aid stroke prediction in AF overall but not advanced CKD; leaves open validation before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: The R2CHADS2 is a new prediction rule for stroke risk in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients wherein R stands for renal risk. However, it was created from a cohort that excluded patients with advanced renal failure (defined as glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min). Our study extends the use of R2CHADS2 to patients with advanced renal failure and aims to compare its predictive power against the currently used CHADS and CHA2DS2VaSc. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the 1-year risk for stroke of the 524 patients with AF at Metropolitan Hospital Center. AUC and C statistics were calculated using three groups: (i) the entire cohort including patients with advanced renal failure, (ii) a cohort excluding patients with advanced renal failure and (iii) all patients with GFR < 30 mL/min only. RESULTS: R2CHADS2, as a predictor for stroke risk, consistently performs better than CHADS2 and CHA2DS2VsC in groups 1 and 2. The C-statistic was highest in R2CHADS compared with CHADS or CHADSVASC in group 1 (0.718 versus 0.605 versus 0.602) and in group 2 (0.724 versus 0.584 versus 0.579). However, there was no statistically significant difference in group 3 (0.631 versus 0.629 versus 0.623). CONCLUSION: Our study supports the utility of R2CHADS2 as a clinical prediction rule for stroke risk in patients with advanced renal failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bautista et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: