Dataset Information

C₂HEST score for atrial fibrillation risk prediction models: a Diagnostic Accuracy Tests meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the value of the C₂HEST score to facilitate population screening and detection of AF risk in millions of populations and validate risk scores and their composition and discriminatory power for identifying people at high or low risk of AF. We searched major indexing databases, including Pubmed/Medline, ISI web of science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane central, using ("C2HEST" OR "risk scoring system" OR "risk score") AND ("atrial fibrillation (AF)" OR "atrial flutter" OR "tachycardia, supraventricular" OR "heart atrium flutter") without any language, study region or study type restrictions between 1990 and 2021 years. Analyses were done using Meta-DiSc. The title and abstract screening were conducted by two independent investigators.

Results

Totally 679 records were found through the initial search, of which ultimately, nine articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. The risk of AF accompanied every one-point increase of C₂HEST score (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p < 0.00001), with a high heterogeneity across studies (I² = 100%). The SROC for C₂HEST score in the prediction of AF showed that the overall area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.96), AUC in Asian population was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95) versus non-Asian 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.99), and in general population was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85-0.99) versus those with chronic conditions 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.95), respectively.

Conclusions

The results of this research support the idea that this quick score has the opportunity for use as a risk assessment in patients' AF screening strategies.

SUBMITTER: Haybar H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8643379 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia worldwide. Early diagnosis of AF is crucial for preventing AF-related morbidity, mortality, and economic burden, yet the detection of the disease remains challenging. The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of AF. Because of technological advances, ambulatory devices may serve as convenient screening tools for AF.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of 2 relatively new technologies used in ambulatory devices, non-12-lead ECG and photoplethysmography (PPG), in detecting AF. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of non-12-lead ECG and PPG compared to the reference standard, 12-lead ECG. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to assess the impact of study design and participant recruitment on diagnostic accuracy.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for articles published from January 1, 2015 to January 23, 2021. A bivariate model was used to pool estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating curve (SROC) as the main diagnostic measures. Study quality was evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool.ResultsOur search resulted in 16 studies using either non-12-lead ECG or PPG for detecting AF, comprising 3217 participants and 7623 assessments. The pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and diagnostic odds ratio for the detection of AF were 89.7% (95% CI 83.2%-93.9%), 95.7% (95% CI 92.0%-97.7%), 20.64 (95% CI 10.10-42.15), 0.11 (95% CI 0.06-0.19), and 224.75 (95% CI 70.10-720.56), respectively, for the automatic interpretation of non-12-lead ECG measurements and 94.7% (95% CI 93.3%-95.8%), 97.6% (95% CI 94.5%-99.0%), 35.51 (95% CI 18.19-69.31), 0.05 (95% CI 0.04-0.07), and 730.79 (95% CI 309.33-1726.49), respectively, for the automatic interpretation of PPG measurements.ConclusionsBoth non-12-lead ECG and PPG offered high diagnostic accuracies for AF. Detection employing automatic analysis techniques may serve as a useful preliminary screening tool before administering a gold standard test, which generally requires competent physician analyses. Subgroup analysis indicated variations of sensitivity and specificity between studies that recruited low-risk and high-risk populations, warranting future validity tests in the general population.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020179937; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=179937.

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:Detection of undiagnosed or undertreated ("actionable") atrial fibrillation could increase the use of appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy and reduce the risk of stroke. We sought to compare newer screening technologies with a pulse-check for the detection of atrial fibrillation and to determine whether the detection of actionable atrial fibrillation increases the use of oral anticoagulant agents. METHODS:This prospective multicentre cohort study involved 22 primary care clinics. We recruited participants aged 65 years and older who were attending routine appointments. Each participant underwent 3 methods of screening: a 30-second radial pulse-check; single-lead electrocardiogram; and screening by blood pressure machine with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms. Participants who received a positive result on 1 or more test underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram with or withour 24-hour Holter. Screening tests were compared using the McNemar test. Participants with confirmed atrial fibrillation received follow-up at 90 days. RESULTS:The mean age of participants was 73.7 (± 6.9) years, and 53.4% of participants were female. Of 2171 patients, we had data from all 3 screening tests for 2054 patients. Both single-lead electrocardiogram and the blood pressure device showed superior specificity compared with pulse-check (p < 0.001 for each). Fifty-six patients (2.7%) had confirmed atrial fibrillation: 12 patients had newly detected atrial fibrillation (none of the patients were using anticoagulation agents), and 44 patients had previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation (42 patients were receiving anticoagulant therapy, 2 were not). Thus, 14 patients had actionable atrial fibrillation (0.7%). By 90 days, 77% of patients with actionable atrial fibrillation had started anticoagulant therapy. INTERPRETATION:Newer screening technologies showed superior specificity compared with a pulse-check. Screening detected undiagnosed or undertreated atrial fibrillation in 0.7% of participants, and 77% started appropriate anticoagulant therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02262351.

Project description:BackgroundResearch on prognostic prediction models frequently uses data from routine healthcare. However, potential misclassification of predictors when using such data may strongly affect the studied associations. There is no doubt that such misclassification could lead to the derivation of suboptimal prediction models. The extent to which misclassification affects the validation of existing prediction models is currently unclear.We aimed to quantify the amount of misclassification in routine care data and its effect on the validation of the existing risk prediction model. As an illustrative example, we validated the CHA2DS2-VASc prediction rule for predicting mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsIn a prospective cohort in general practice in the Netherlands, we used computerized retrieved data from the electronic medical records of patients known with AF as index predictors. Additionally, manually collected data after scrutinizing all complete medical files were used as reference predictors. Comparing the index with the reference predictors, we assessed misclassification in individual predictors by calculating Cohen's kappas and other diagnostic test accuracy measures. Predictive performance was quantified by the c-statistic and by determining calibration of multivariable models.ResultsIn total, 2363 AF patients were included. After a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.3-3.0) years, 368 patients died (incidence rate 6.2 deaths per 100 person-years). Misclassification in individual predictors ranged from substantial (Cohen's kappa 0.56 for prior history of heart failure) to minor (kappa 0.90 for a history of type 2 diabetes). The overall model performance was not affected when using either index or reference predictors, with a c-statistic of 0.684 and 0.681, respectively, and similar calibration.ConclusionIn a case study validating the CHA2DS2-VASc prediction model, we found substantial predictor misclassification in routine healthcare data with only limited effect on overall model performance. Our study should be repeated for other often applied prediction models to further evaluate the usefulness of routinely available healthcare data for validating prognostic models in the presence of predictor misclassification.

Project description:AimsAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with an increased stroke risk. The use of multivariable prediction models could result in more efficient primary AF screening by selecting at-risk individuals. We aimed to determine which model may be best suitable for increasing efficiency of future primary AF screening efforts.Methods and resultsWe performed a systematic review on multivariable models derived, validated, and/or augmented for AF prediction in community cohorts using Pubmed, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) through 1 August 2019. We performed meta-analysis of model discrimination with the summary C-statistic as the primary expression of associations using a random effects model. In case of high heterogeneity, we calculated a 95% prediction interval. We used the CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) checklist for risk of bias assessment. We included 27 studies with a total of 2 978 659 unique participants among 20 cohorts with mean age ranging from 42 to 76 years. We identified 21 risk models used for incident AF risk in community cohorts. Three models showed significant summary discrimination despite high heterogeneity: CHARGE-AF (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology) [summary C-statistic 0.71; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.66-0.76], FHS-AF (Framingham Heart Study risk score for AF) (summary C-statistic 0.70; 95% CI 0.64-0.76), and CHA2DS2-VASc (summary C-statistic 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.74). Of these, CHARGE-AF and FHS-AF had originally been derived for AF incidence prediction. Only CHARGE-AF, which comprises easily obtainable measurements and medical history elements, showed significant summary discrimination among cohorts that had applied a uniform (5-year) risk prediction window.ConclusionCHARGE-AF appeared most suitable for primary screening purposes in terms of performance and applicability in older community cohorts of predominantly European descent.