Key result
A4C score better predicts bleeding risk than existing scores in elderly AF patients on rivaroxaban.
Why the study?
Existing bleeding risk scores have not been developed specifically for a geriatric population using direct oral anticoagulants.
Does the DOAC score improve bleeding risk prediction compared to HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores in adult patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation receiving DOACs?
Meta-Analysis (n=89,688)
Yes
Does the DOAC score improve bleeding risk prediction compared to HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores in adult patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation receiving DOACs?
The DOAC score provides a modest but statistically significant improvement in predicting major bleeding compared to the HAS-BLED score in AF patients on DOACs, but performs similarly to the ORBIT score, suggesting these tools should support rather than dictate clinical decisions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support A4C for bleeding risk stratification in AF patients ≥80 on rivaroxaban; leaves open external validation before practice change.
Although the use of direct oral anticoagulants increases in parallel with the increase in atrial fibrillation (AF) with age, none of the bleeding risk scores (HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA nor RE-LY) have been developed in a geriatric population. Our study aimed to develop a bleeding risk score adapted to this specific population and this therapeutic class. Multicentre, longitudinal, prospective, observational, pharmacoepidemiologic study conducted in 60 French cardiologic and geriatric centres included consecutive patients aged ≥80 years with AF, treated with rivaroxaban and followed for at least 1 year. All thromboembolic, bleeding and clinical events, including falls, hospitalisations or deaths, were recorded every 3 months for 1 year. A predictive risk score based on the clinical variables most associated with bleeding events was developed from the total sample, randomly divided into a training sample and a validation sample. Among the 839 patients included (mean age = 86 year old, 62% women), there were 78 (9.3%) major haemorrhagic events. Variables associated with bleeding were age, anaemia, low albuminemia, amiodarone use and low creatinine clearance estimated with Cockcroft formula, grouped together as the A4C score. The A4C score better identifies bleeding risk in subjects ≥80 years than the scores already validated in younger populations, as its area under the curve in the training sample and in the validation sample was 0.73 and 0.66, respectively, whereas it was 0.49/0.55 for the HAS-BLED score, 0.53/0.50 for the HEMORR2HAGES score, 0.58/0.61 for the ATRIA score and 0.57/0.54 for the RE-LY score. A threshold of the A4C score ≥ 2 identifies subjects ≥80 years at high risk of bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piccoli et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=89,688). DOAC score vs. HAS-BLED score was evaluated on Discrimination for major bleeding (pooled C-index) (Pooled C-index 0.68 vs).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: