INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients' major bleeding risk should be evaluated through risk scores such as HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES or ATRIA. These scores were validated in independent studies with different methods. Therefore, we aimed to review and estimate the value added by ATRIA and HEMORR2HAGES compared to HAS-BLED. METHODS: Medline and Cochrane Library (July 2013) were searched, as well as reviews and references of obtained articles. We looked for studies reporting data for diagnostic accuracy of HAS-BLED with any of HEMORR2HAGES or ATRIA scores, concerning Major Bleeding events. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of ATRIA and HEMORR2HAGES compared to HAS-BLED within the same studies. Random effects meta-analysis was performed in order to derive diagnostic accuracy estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed through I (2) test. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated simultaneously HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES. Sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were respectively 0.53 (0.52-0.54), 0.65 (0.65-0.65) and 2.11 (1.91-2.35) for HAS-BLED, and 0.27 (0.26-0.27), 0.89 (0.89-0.89) and 2.90 (2.77-3.04) for HEMORR2HAGES. Four studies compared HAS-BLED with ATRIA. Sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were respectively 0.41 (0.35-0.48), 0.78 (0.76-0.79) and 2.22 (1.08-4.55) for HAS-BLED, and 0.23 (0.17-0.29), 0.91 (0.90-0.91) and 1.98 (1.29-3.03) for ATRIA. CONCLUSIONS: The 'high-risk' categories of the evaluated major bleeding-risk scores are not sensitive. HAS-BLED, due to its sensitivity (compared to other scores) and ease to apply, is recommended for the assessment of AF patients' major bleeding risk.
INTRODUCTION:Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients' major bleeding risk should be evaluated through risk scores such as HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES or ATRIA. These scores were validated in independent studies with different methods. Therefore, we aimed to review and estimate the value added by ATRIA and HEMORR2HAGES compared to HAS-BLED. METHODS: Medline and Cochrane Library (July 2013) were searched, as well as reviews and references of obtained articles. We looked for studies reporting data for diagnostic accuracy of HAS-BLED with any of HEMORR2HAGES or ATRIA scores, concerning Major Bleeding events. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of ATRIA and HEMORR2HAGES compared to HAS-BLED within the same studies. Random effects meta-analysis was performed in order to derive diagnostic accuracy estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed through I (2) test. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated simultaneously HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES. Sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were respectively 0.53 (0.52-0.54), 0.65 (0.65-0.65) and 2.11 (1.91-2.35) for HAS-BLED, and 0.27 (0.26-0.27), 0.89 (0.89-0.89) and 2.90 (2.77-3.04) for HEMORR2HAGES. Four studies compared HAS-BLED with ATRIA. Sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were respectively 0.41 (0.35-0.48), 0.78 (0.76-0.79) and 2.22 (1.08-4.55) for HAS-BLED, and 0.23 (0.17-0.29), 0.91 (0.90-0.91) and 1.98 (1.29-3.03) for ATRIA. CONCLUSIONS: The 'high-risk' categories of the evaluated major bleeding-risk scores are not sensitive. HAS-BLED, due to its sensitivity (compared to other scores) and ease to apply, is recommended for the assessment of AFpatients' major bleeding risk.
Authors: Gregory Y H Lip; Felicita Andreotti; Laurent Fauchier; Kurt Huber; Elaine Hylek; Eve Knight; Deirdre A Lane; Marcel Levi; Francisco Marin; Gualtiero Palareti; Paulus Kirchhof; Jean-Philippe Collet; Andrea Rubboli; Daniela Poli; John Camm Journal: Europace Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Stavros Apostolakis; Deirdre A Lane; Yutao Guo; Harry Buller; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Brian F Gage; Yan Yan; Paul E Milligan; Amy D Waterman; Robert Culverhouse; Michael W Rich; Martha J Radford Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J Gustav Smith; Mattias Wieloch; Sasha Koul; Oscar Ö Braun; Jonathan Lumsden; Emil Rydell; Jenny Ohman; Fredrik Scherstén; Peter J Svensson; Jesper van der Pals Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Stavros Apostolakis; Deirdre A Lane; Yutao Guo; Harry Buller; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Emily C O'Brien; DaJuanicia N Simon; Laine E Thomas; Elaine M Hylek; Bernard J Gersh; Jack E Ansell; Peter R Kowey; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Paul Chang; Gregg C Fonarow; Michael J Pencina; Jonathan P Piccini; Eric D Peterson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: David R Vinson; E Margaret Warton; Dustin G Mark; Dustin W Ballard; Mary E Reed; Uli K Chettipally; Nimmie Singh; Sean Z Bouvet; Bory Kea; Patricia C Ramos; David S Glaser; Alan S Go Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-02-12
Authors: José Miguel Rivera-Caravaca; Vanessa Roldán; María Asunción Esteve-Pastor; Mariano Valdés; Vicente Vicente; Gregory Y H Lip; Francisco Marín Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jelle C L Himmelreich; Lieke Veelers; Wim A M Lucassen; Renate B Schnabel; Michiel Rienstra; Henk C P M van Weert; Ralf E Harskamp Journal: Europace Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.214