ITL: Physician Reviews of HM-Relevant Research
Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?
Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best for predicting clinically relevant bleeding.
Study design: Post-hoc analysis.
Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding-risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.
Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.
The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.
Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.
Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867.
