Dataset Information

Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores have been proposed to assess bleeding risk in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the predictive ability by using these two scores.

Materials and methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, Elsevier and PubMed databases for related studies. Statistical analysis was performed with Revman 5.3 Manager software. We chose the C-statistic to reflect the diagnostic value.

Results

In our seven selected studies, the pooled C- statistic of continuous variables for major bleeding was 0.65 (0.60,0.69) for ORBIT and 0.63 (0.60,0.66) for HAS-BLED. Compared with HAS-BLED, more anticoagulated AF patients (88.45% versus 32.59%) and major bleeding events (75.57% versus 25.57%) were categorized as low risk. The ORBIT score had a 1.21, 1.73 and 1.44-fold elevated risk of major bleeding in the low, intermediate and high risk strata respectively. Calibration analysis demonstrated that the ORBIT score under-predicted major bleeding in the low, intermediate, and high risk stratifications, where a odds ratio of 0.64 (0.37-1.10), 0.63 (0.38-1.05) and 0.64 (0.38-1.06), respectively.

Conclusions

Compared with HAS-BLED , the ORBIT score does not perform better in predicting major bleeding events in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients. More anticoagulated AF patients and major bleeding events were categorized as low risk when using ORBIT.

SUBMITTER: Wang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5752553 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Cen C Yu Ye Y Zhu Wengen W Yu Jianhua J Lip Gregory Y H GYH Hong Kui K

Oncotarget 20170803 65

<h4>Background</h4>The HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores have been proposed to assess bleeding risk in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the predictive ability by using these two scores.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We searched the Cochrane Library, Elsevier and PubMed databases for related studies. Statistical analysis was performed with Revman 5.3 Manager software. We chose the C-statistic to reflect the diagnostic value.<h4>Resu ...[more]

PMID: 29312640

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with oral anticoagulants may be exposed to an increased risk of bleeding events. The HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke, Bleeding, Labile INRs, Elderly, Drugs or alcohol) score is a simple, well-established, clinical bleeding-risk prediction score. Recently, a new algorithm-based score was proposed, the GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant in the Field-AF) bleeding score. We compared HAS-BLED and GARFIELD-AF scores in predicting adjudicated bleeding events in a clinical trial cohort of patients with AF taking anticoagulants, in the first external comparative validation of both scores. Methods and Results We analyzed patients from the SPORTIF (Stroke Prevention Using an Oral Thrombin Inhibitor in Patients With AF) III and V trials. All patients assigned to the warfarin arm with information to calculate the scores were considered. Outcomes were major, major/clinically relevant nonmajor, and any bleeding. A total of 3550 warfarin-treated patients were available for analysis. Of these patients, 2519 (71.0%) had a HAS-BLED score ≥3, whereas based on GARFIELD-AF median value, 2056 (57.9%) were categorized as "high score." Both HAS-BLED and GARFIELD-AF C-indexes showed modest predictive value (C-index [95% confidence interval] for major bleeding, 0.58 [0.56-0.60] and 0.56 [0.54-0.57], respectively); however, GARFIELD-AF was not predictive of any bleeding. The GARFIELD-AF bleeding score had a significantly lower sensitivity and a negative reclassification for any bleeding compared with HAS-BLED, assessed by integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification improvement (both P<0.001). HAS-BLED showed a 5% net benefit for any bleeding occurrence. Conclusions The algorithm-based GARFIELD-AF bleeding score did not show any significant improvement in major and major/clinically relevant nonmajor prediction compared with the simple HAS-BLED score. For clinical usefulness in prediction of any bleeding, the HAS-BLED score showed a significant net benefit compared with the GARFIELD-AF.

Project description:Background The association between cancer types and specific bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation has been scarcely investigated. Also, the performance of bleeding risk scores in this high-risk subgroup of patients is unclear. We investigated the rate of any bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding according to cancer types in patients with atrial fibrillation. We also tested the predictive value of HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and ORBIT bleeding risk scores. Methods and Results Observational retrospective cohort study including hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer from the French National Hospital Discharge Database (Programme de Medicalisation des Systemes d'Information) from January 2010 to December 2019. Major bleeding was defined according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions. Patients with HAS-BLED ≥3, ATRIA ≥5, or ORBIT ≥4 were classified as at high bleeding risk. Receiver operating characteristic analysis for each score against any bleeding, major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage was performed. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were then compared. We included 399 344 patients. Mean age was 77.9±10.2 years, and 63.2% were men. The highest intracranial hemorrhage rates were found in leukemia (1.89%/year), myeloma (1.52%/year), lymphoma and liver (1.45%/year), and pancreas cancer (1.41%/year). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that ORBIT score predicted best for any bleeding. In addition, ORBIT score ≥4 had the highest predictivity for major bleeding (AUC, 0.805), followed by HAS-BLED ≥3 and ATRIA ≥5 (AUCs, 0.716 and 0.700, respectively). HAS-BLED and ORBIT performed best for intracranial hemorrhage (AUCs, 0.744 and 0.742 for continuous scores, respectively), better than ATRIA (AUC, 0.635). For gastrointestinal bleeding, ORBIT ≥4 had the highest predictivity (AUC, 0.756), followed by the HAS-BLED ≥3 (AUC, 0.702) and ATRIA ≥5 (AUC, 0.662). Conclusions Some cancer types carry a greater bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. The identification and management of modifiable bleeding risk factors is crucial in these patients, as well as to flag up high bleeding risk patients for early review and follow-up.

Project description:Background: Several bleeding risk assessment models have been developed in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with oral anticoagulants, but the most appropriate tool for predicting bleeding remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Hypertension, Abnormal liver/renal function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly, Drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HAS-BLED) score compared with other risk scores in anticoagulated patients with AF. Methods: We comprehensively searched the PubMed and Embase databases until July 2021 to identify relevant pieces of literature. The predictive abilities of risk scores were fully assessed by the C-statistic, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) values, calibration data, and decision curve analyses. Results: A total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. The C-statistic of the HAS-BLED score for predicting major bleeding was 0.63 (0.61-0.65) in anticoagulated patients regardless of vitamin k antagonists [0.63 (0.61-0.65)] and direct oral anticoagulants [0.63 (0.59-0.67)]. The HAS-BLED had the similar C-statistic to the Hepatic or renal disease, Ethanol abuse, Malignancy, Older, Reduced platelet count or function, Re-bleeding risk, Hypertension (uncontrolled), Anemia, Genetic factors, Excessive fall risk, Stroke (HEMORR2HAGES), the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA), the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT), the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF), or the Age, Biomarkers, Clinical History (ABC) scores, but significantly higher C-statistic than the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/transient ischemic attack history (CHADS2) or the Congestive heart failure/left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism history, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex (female) (CHA2DS2-VASc) scores. NRI and IDI values suggested that the HAS-BLED score performed better than the CHADS2 or the CHA2DS2-VASc scores and had similar or superior predictive ability compared with the HEMORR2HAGES, the ATRIA, the ORBIT, or the GARFIELD-AF scores. Calibration and decision curve analyses of the HAS-BLED score compared with other scores required further assessment due to the limited evidence. Conclusion: The HAS-BLED score has moderate predictive abilities for bleeding risks in patients with AF regardless of type of oral anticoagulants. Current evidence support that the HAS-BLED score is at least non-inferior to the HEMORR2HAGES, the ATRIA, the ORBIT, the GARFIELD-AF, the CHADS2, the CHA2DS2-VASc, or the ABC scores.

Project description:Background Reducing major bleeding events is a challenge when managing anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study evaluated the impact of modifiable and nonmodifiable bleeding risk factors in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving rivaroxaban and estimated the impact of risk factor modification on major bleeding events. Methods and Results Modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors associated with major bleeding events were identified from the XANTUS (Xarelto for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) prospective registry data set (6784 rivaroxaban-treated patients). Parameters showing univariate association with bleeding were used to construct a multivariable model identifying independent risk factors. Modeling was used to estimate attributed weights to risk factors. Heavy alcohol use (hazard ratio [HR]=2.37; 95% CI 1.24-4.53); uncontrolled hypertension (HR after parameter-wise shrinkage=1.79; 95% CI 1.05-3.05); and concomitant treatment with antiplatelets, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or paracetamol (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.24-2.61) were identified as modifiable, independent bleeding risk factors. Increasing age (HR=1.25 [per 5-year increment]; 95% CI 1.12-1.38); heart failure (HR=1.97; 95% CI 1.36-2.86); and vascular disease (HR=1.91; 95% CI 1.32-2.77) were identified as nonmodifiable bleeding risk factors. Overall, 128 (1.9%) patients experienced major bleeding events; of these, 11% had no identified bleeding risk factors, 50% had nonmodifiable bleeding risk factors only, and 39% had modifiable bleeding risk factors (with or without nonmodifiable risk factors). The presence of 1 modifiable bleeding risk factor doubled the risk of major bleeding. Conclusions Elimination of modifiable bleeding risk factors is a potentially effective strategy to reduce bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation patients receiving rivaroxaban. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01606995.

Project description:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased mortality, predictors of which are poorly characterized. We investigated the predictive power of the commonly used CHA2DS2-VASc score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years [doubled], diabetes, stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism [doubled], vascular disease [prior myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, or aortic plaque], age 65-75 years, sex category [female]), the HAS-BLED score (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio [INR], elderly [age ≥ 65 years], drugs/alcohol concomitantly), and their combination for mortality in AF patients. The PREvention oF thromboembolic events-European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation (PREFER in AF) was a prospective registry including AF patients across seven European countries. We used logistic regression to analyze the relationship between the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores and outcomes, including mortality, at one year. We evaluated the performance of logistic regression models by discrimination measures (C-index and DeLong test) and calibration measures (Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), with bootstrap techniques for internal validation. In 5209 AF patients with complete information on both scores, average one-year mortality was 3.1%. We found strong gradients between stroke/systemic embolic events (SSE), major bleeding and-specifically-mortality for both CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, with a similar C-statistic for event prediction. The predictive power of the models with both scores combined, removing overlapping components, was significantly enhanced (p < 0.01) compared to models including either CHA2DS2-VASc or HAS-BLED alone: for mortality, C-statistic: 0.740, compared to 0.707 for CHA2DS2-VASc or 0.646 for HAS-BLED alone. IDI analyses supported the significant improvement for the combined score model compared to separate score models for all outcomes. Both the CHA2DS2-VASc and the HAS-BLED scores predict mortality similarly in patients with AF, and a combination of their components increases prediction significantly. Such combination may be useful for investigational and-possibly-also clinical purposes.

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) must weigh the benefits of anticoagulation in preventing stroke versus the risk of bleeding. Although empirical models have been developed to predict such risks, the degree to which these coincide with clinicians' estimates is unclear.Methods and resultsWe examined 10 094 AF patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) registry between June 2010 and August 2011. Empirical stroke and bleeding risks were assessed by using the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2) and Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores, respectively. Separately, physicians were asked to categorize their patients' stroke and bleeding risks: low risk (<3%); intermediate risk (3%-6%); and high risk (>6%). Overall, 72% (n=7251) in ORBIT-AF had high-risk CHADS2 scores (≥2). However, only 16% were assessed as high stroke risk by physicians. Although 17% (n=1749) had high ATRIA bleeding risk (score ≥5), only 7% (n=719) were considered so by physicians. The associations between empirical and physician-estimated stroke and bleeding risks were low (weighted Kappa 0.1 and 0.11, respectively). Physicians weighed hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus less significantly than empirical models in estimating stroke risk; physicians weighted anemia and dialysis less significantly than empirical models when estimating bleeding risks. Anticoagulation use was highest among patients with high stroke risk, assessed by either empirical model or physician estimates. In contrast, physician and empirical estimates of bleeding had limited impact on treatment choice.ConclusionsThere is little agreement between provider-assessed risk and empirical scores in AF. These differences may explain, in part, the current divergence of anticoagulation treatment decisions from guideline recommendations.Clinical trial registration urlhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatments (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) at a standard adjusted dose (target international normalised ratio 2.0-3.0), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), ASA and clopidogrel) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and among subpopulations.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesA systematic literature search strategy was designed and carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the grey literature including the websites of regulatory agencies and health technology assessment organisations for trials published in English from 1988 to January 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials were selected for inclusion if they were published in English, included at least one antithrombotic treatment and involved patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation eligible to receive anticoagulant therapy.ResultsFor stroke or systemic embolism, dabigatran 150?mg and apixaban twice daily were associated with reductions relative to standard adjusted dose VKA, whereas low-dose ASA and the combination of clopidogrel plus low-dose ASA were associated with increases. Absolute risk reductions ranged from 6 fewer events per 1000 patients treated for dabigatran 150?mg twice daily to 15 more events for clopidogrel plus ASA. For major bleeding, edoxaban 30?mg daily, apixaban, edoxaban 60?mg daily and dabigatran 110?mg twice daily were associated with reductions compared to standard adjusted dose VKA. Absolute risk reductions with these agents ranged from 18 fewer per 1000 patients treated each year for edoxaban 30?mg daily to 24 more for medium dose ASA.ConclusionsCompared with standard adjusted dose VKA, new oral anticoagulants were associated with modest reductions in the absolute risk of stroke and major bleeding. People on antiplatelet drugs experienced more strokes compared with anticoagulant drugs without any reduction in bleeding risk. To fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of antithrombotic agents across the various subpopulations, rigorously conducted comparative studies or network meta-regression analyses of patient-level data are required.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO registry-CRD42012002721.

Dataset Information

Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets