Key result
Novel stroke risk scores fail to consistently outperform CHA2DS2-VASc for predicting thromboembolism.
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
The transportability and performance of published stroke risk scores in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation remain uncertain.
Do alternative published stroke risk scores outperform the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting ischemic stroke or systemic embolism in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,283)
No
Do alternative published stroke risk scores outperform the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting ischemic stroke or systemic embolism in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Other stroke risk models did not consistently outperform the CHA2DS2-VASc score in a Chinese cohort with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, supporting its continued clinical utility.
CHA2DS2-VASc retains utility for stroke risk stratification in non-valvular AF; leaves open whether alternatives improve prediction in other populations.
BACKGROUND Accurate prediction of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism is central to atrial fibrillation (AF) management, yet the transportability of available risk scores to Chinese populations remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE Externally validate and compare published stroke risk scores in Chinese patients with non-valvular AF. METHODS We systematically retrieved and externally validated 17 published models in a retrospective cohort of 1,283 adults hospitalized with non-valvular AF at a Chinese tertiary-care center. Discrimination was evaluated using the 4-year Uno C-index and time-dependent areas under the curve (AUC). Models providing absolute risks also underwent calibration, Brier score, and reclassification analyses. Sensitivity analyses accounted for death as a competing event and separately evaluated patients not receiving OAC at baseline. RESULTS During 4 years of follow-up, 103 primary outcomes occurred, corresponding to 2.85 events per 100 person-years. Across models, 4-year Uno C-indices ranged from 0.572 to 0.767, compared with 0.690 for CHA2DS2-VASc. GARFIELD-AF 2017, GARFIELD-AF 2021, and ATRIA had higher Uno C-indices than CHA2DS2-VASc. However, no model had significantly higher time-dependent AUC at any time point. For 1-year calibration, CHA2DS2-VASc had predicted and observed risks of 3.39% and 3.54%, respectively, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.04, whereas several other models underestimated risk. Brier scores and reclassification measures showed no consistent advantage Competing-risk analyses lowered cumulative incidence without changing comparative patterns. Among patients not receiving OAC at baseline, no model outperformed CHA2DS2-VASc. CONCLUSION Candidate models did not consistently outperform CHA2DS2-VASc in this external validation; CHA2DS2-VASc remains practical, while other models may require population-specific validation and recalibration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gong et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=1,283). Published stroke risk scores (17 models) vs. CHA2DS2-VASc was evaluated on Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. Seventeen published stroke risk scores (Uno C-indices 0.572 to 0.767) did not consistently outperform CHA2DS2-VASc (C-index 0.690) for predicting ischemic stroke or systemic embolism.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: