Key result
The CHA2DS2-VASc score predicted long-term all-cause mortality, with a score ≥3 associated with a 3-fold increased risk compared to <3 (OR 3.05; 95% CI 2.6-3.6).
Why the study?
Rapid scoring systems validated in patients with AF may be useful beyond their original purpose, motivating evaluation of their utility for predicting long-term mortality in patients referred for elective coronary angiography.
Do AF-validated rapid scoring systems (CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, 2MACE) predict long-term mortality in patients referred for elective coronary angiography?
Cohort (n=7,409)
Do AF-validated rapid scoring systems (CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, 2MACE) predict long-term mortality in patients referred for elective coronary angiography?
Odds Ratio: 3.05 (95% CI 2.6–3.6)
Clinical scores initially validated in AF patients, particularly CHA2DS2-VASc and 2MACE, have moderate predictive value for long-term all-cause mortality in patients referred for elective coronary angiography.
CHA2DS2-VASc may aid mortality stratification in elective angiography referrals; extends AF scores but remains hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
Rapid scoring systems validated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) may be useful beyond their original purpose. Our aim was to assess the utility of CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS−BLED, and 2MACE scores in predicting long-term mortality in the population of the Białystok Coronary Project, including AF patients. The initial study population consisted of 7409 consecutive patients admitted for elective coronary angiography between 2007 and 2016. The study endpoint was all-cause mortality, which occurred in 1244 (16.8%) patients during the follow-up, ranging from 1283 to 3059 days (median 2029 days). We noticed substantially increased all-cause mortality in patients with higher values of all compared scores. The accuracy of the scores in predicting all-cause mortality was also assessed using the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. The greatest predictive value for mortality was recorded for the CHA2DS2-VASc score in the overall study population (area under curve [AUC] = 0.665; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.645−0.681). We observed that the 2MACE score (AUC = 0.656; 95%CI 0.619−0.681), but not the HAS−BLED score, had similar predictive value to the CHA2DS2-VASc score for all-cause mortality in the overall study population. In AF patients, all scores did not differ in all-cause mortality prediction. Additionally, we found that study participants with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 vs. <3 had a 3-fold increased risk of long-term all-cause mortality (odds ratio 3.05; 95%CI 2.6−3.6). Our study indicates that clinical scores initially validated in AF patients may be useful for predicting mortality in a broader population (e.g., in patients referred for elective coronary angiography). According to our findings, all compared scores have a moderate predictive value. However, in our study, the CHA2DS2-VASc and 2MACE scores outperformed the HAS−BLED score in terms of the long-term all-cause mortality prediction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rogalska et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in patients referred for elective coronary angiography (n=7,409). CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 vs. CHA2DS2-VASc score <3 was evaluated on long-term all-cause mortality (OR 3.05, 95% CI 2.6-3.6). The CHA2DS2-VASc score predicted long-term all-cause mortality, with a score ≥3 associated with a 3-fold increased risk compared to <3 (OR 3.05; 95% CI 2.6-3.6).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: