Performance of the HEMORR(2)HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation: the AMADEUS (evaluating the use of SR34006 compared to warfarin or acenocoumarol in patients with atrial fibrillation) study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the predictive performance of bleeding risk-estimation tools in a cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing anticoagulation.
BACKGROUND: Three bleeding risk-prediction schemes have been derived for and validated in patients with AF: HEMORR(2)HAGES (Hepatic or Renal Disease, Ethanol Abuse, Malignancy, Older Age, Reduced Platelet Count or Function, Re-Bleeding, Hypertension, Anemia, Genetic Factors, Excessive Fall Risk and Stroke), ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation), and HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile International Normalized Ratio, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol). Τhe relative predictive values of these bleeding scores have not previously been compared.
METHODS: We analyzed the dataset from the AMADEUS (Evaluating the Use of SR34006 Compared to Warfarin or Acenocoumarol in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial, a multicenter, randomized, open-label noninferiority study that compared fixed-dose idraparinux with adjustable-dose oral vitamin K antagonist therapy in patients with AF. The principal safety outcome was any clinically relevant bleeding event, which was a composite of major bleeding plus clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.
RESULTS: The HAS-BLED score performed best in predicting any clinically relevant bleeding, reflected both in net reclassification improvement (10.3% and 13% improvement compared with HEMORR(2)HAGES and ATRIA, respectively) and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses (c-indexes: 0.60 vs. 0.55 and 0.50 for HAS-BLED vs. HEMORR(2)AGES and ATRIA, respectively). Using decision-curve analysis, the HAS-BLED score demonstrated superior performance compared with ATRIA and HEMORR(2)HAGES at any threshold probability for clinically relevant bleeding. HAS-BLED was the only score that demonstrated a significant predictive performance for intracranial hemorrhage (c-index: 0.75; p = 0.03). An ATRIA score >3 was not significantly associated with the risk for any clinically relevant bleeding on Cox regression or on ROC analysis (c-index: 0.50; p = 0.87).
CONCLUSIONS: All 3 tested bleeding risk-prediction scores demonstrated only modest performance in predicting any clinically relevant bleeding, although the HAS-BLED score performed better than the HEMORR(2)HAGES and ATRIA scores, as reflected by ROC analysis, reclassification analysis, and decision-curve analysis. Only HAS-BLED demonstrated a significant predictive performance for intracranial hemorrhage. Given its simplicity, the HAS-BLED score may be an attractive method for the estimation of oral anticoagulant-related bleeding risk for use in clinical practice, supporting recommendations in international guidelines.