Comparison of HAS-BLED with other risk models for predicting the bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: A PRISMA-compliant article.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jun 2020
19 Jun 2020
Historique:
entrez:
23
6
2020
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
21
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and ORBIT scores are used to predict bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, these scores have been validated in various studies. Therefore, we aimed to compare the occurrence of major bleeding across different risk categories between HAS-BLED and any of HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, or ORBIT scores. A systemic literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to screen the relevant studies. We calculated and pooled the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a comparative analysis of the occurrence of major bleeding. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis. Compared with HEMORR2HAGES, there were 87% and 39% reduced rates of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" and "moderate-risk" groups, respectively. Compared with ATRIA, there was an 89% decreased rate of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" group. Compared with ORBIT, there were 84% and 44% reduced rates of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" and "moderate-risk" groups, respectively. Patients with HAS-BLED scores ≥3 showed an approximately 3-fold greater risk of major bleeding compared with patients with scores <3 (OR=3.00, CI: 1.21-7.43). Compared with any of HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, or ORBIT scores, the HAS-BLED score distributed more major bleeding events into the "low" or "moderate" risk categories.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and ORBIT scores are used to predict bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, these scores have been validated in various studies. Therefore, we aimed to compare the occurrence of major bleeding across different risk categories between HAS-BLED and any of HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, or ORBIT scores.
METHODS
METHODS
A systemic literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to screen the relevant studies. We calculated and pooled the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a comparative analysis of the occurrence of major bleeding.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis. Compared with HEMORR2HAGES, there were 87% and 39% reduced rates of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" and "moderate-risk" groups, respectively. Compared with ATRIA, there was an 89% decreased rate of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" group. Compared with ORBIT, there were 84% and 44% reduced rates of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" and "moderate-risk" groups, respectively. Patients with HAS-BLED scores ≥3 showed an approximately 3-fold greater risk of major bleeding compared with patients with scores <3 (OR=3.00, CI: 1.21-7.43).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with any of HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, or ORBIT scores, the HAS-BLED score distributed more major bleeding events into the "low" or "moderate" risk categories.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32569222
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020782
pii: 00005792-202006190-00070
pmc: PMC7310965
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anticoagulants
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e20782Références
Europace. 2013 Jun;15(6):787-97
pubmed: 23407628
Am Heart J. 2006 Mar;151(3):713-9
pubmed: 16504638
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 22;61(3):386-7
pubmed: 23246385
Tex Heart Inst J. 2015 Feb 01;42(1):6-15
pubmed: 25873792
Circulation. 2010 Feb 23;121(7):948-54
pubmed: 20177011
Arch Intern Med. 1999 Mar 8;159(5):457-60
pubmed: 10074953
J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9(8):1460-7
pubmed: 21624047
Eur Heart J. 2015 Dec 7;36(46):3258-64
pubmed: 26424865
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19;58(4):395-401
pubmed: 21757117
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Aug 28;60(9):861-7
pubmed: 22858389
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2014 Sep;40(3):277-84
pubmed: 25012972
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Aug 15;116(4):527-31
pubmed: 26081068
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Feb 16;152(4):264-5; author reply 265
pubmed: 20157144
Chest. 2013 Jan;143(1):179-184
pubmed: 22722228
Thromb Haemost. 2010 Jan;103(1):13-28
pubmed: 20062939
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Jan 15;227:436-442
pubmed: 27839802
Clin Cardiol. 2014 Oct;37(10):634-44
pubmed: 25168181
Stroke. 2017 Nov;48(11):3142-3144
pubmed: 28931618
Thromb Res. 2014 Apr;133(4):560-6
pubmed: 24461143
Am J Med. 1998 Aug;105(2):91-9
pubmed: 9727814
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 1;151(5):297-305
pubmed: 19721017
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jan 11;57(2):173-80
pubmed: 21111555
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2015 Jun 10;11:317-32
pubmed: 26089678
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 15;221:379-82
pubmed: 27409565
Heart Fail Rev. 2020 Nov;25(6):957-964
pubmed: 31655947
Chest. 2010 Nov;138(5):1093-100
pubmed: 20299623
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Nov 1;120(9):1549-1556
pubmed: 28844514
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014 Feb;5(1):21-37
pubmed: 25083260
Oncotarget. 2017 Aug 03;8(65):109703-109711
pubmed: 29312640
Thromb Haemost. 2011 Oct;106(4):569-71
pubmed: 21909592
Thromb Haemost. 2011 Oct;106(4):572-84
pubmed: 21785808
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 12;6:24376
pubmed: 27067661
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 14;349(7):631-9
pubmed: 12917299
Europace. 2012 Oct;14(10):1385-413
pubmed: 22923145
Circ J. 2016 Sep 23;80(10):2102-8
pubmed: 27557850
Clin Cardiol. 2015 Sep;38(9):555-61
pubmed: 26418409
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 May;22(4):561-9
pubmed: 23499334
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Feb 16;152(4):265
pubmed: 20157146