GARFIELD-AF risk score for mortality, stroke and bleeding within 2 years in patients with atrial fibrillation

Impact of patient selection in clinical trials: application of ROCKET AF and ARISTOTLE criteria in GARFIELD-AF

BACKGROUND

The extent to which differences in results from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) and Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial (ROCKET) atrial fibrillation (AF)-the landmark trials for the approval of apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively, for non-valvular AF-were influenced by differences in their protocols is debated. The potential influence of selection criteria on trial results was assessed by emulating these trials in data from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD)-AF registry.

METHODS

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and non-vitamin K oral antagonist (NOAC) users from GARFIELD-AF were selected according to eligibility for the original ARISTOTLE or ROCKET AF trials. A propensity score overlap weighted Cox model was used to emulate trial randomisation between treatment groups. Adjusted HRs for stroke or systemic embolism (SE) within 2 years of enrolment were calculated for each NOAC versus VKA.

RESULTS

Among patients on apixaban, rivaroxaban and VKA, 2570, 3560 and 8005 were eligible for ARISTOTLE, respectively, and 1612, 2005 and 4368, respectively, for ROCKET AF. When selecting for ARISTOTLE criteria, apixaban users had significantly lower stroke/SE risk versus VKA (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.94) while no reduction was observed with rivaroxaban (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.40). When selecting for ROCKET AF criteria, safety and efficacy versus VKA were similar across the NOACs.

CONCLUSION

Apixaban and rivaroxaban showed similar results versus VKA in high-risk patients selected according to ROCKET AF criteria, whereas differences emerged when selecting for the more inclusive ARISTOTLE criteria. Our results highlight the importance of trial selection criteria in interpreting trial results and underline the problems faced in comparing treatments across rather than within clinical trials.

Predicting multifaceted risks using machine learning in atrial fibrillation: insights from GLORIA-AF study

Aims

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischaemic stroke and death. While anticoagulants are effective at reducing these risks, they increase the risk of bleeding. Current clinical risk scores only perform modestly in predicting adverse outcomes, especially for the outcome of death. We aimed to test the multi-label gradient boosting decision tree (ML-GBDT) model in predicting risks for adverse outcomes in a prospective global AF registry.

Methods and results

We studied patients from phase II/III of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Anti-Thrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation registry between 2011 and 2020. The outcomes were all-cause death, ischaemic stroke, and major bleeding within 1 year following the AF. We trained the ML-GBDT model and compared its discrimination with the clinical scores in predicting patient outcomes. A total of 25 656 patients were included [mean age 70.3 years (SD 10.3); 44.8% female]. Within 1 year after AF, ischaemic stroke occurred in 215 (0.8%), major bleeding in 405 (1.6%), and death in 897 (3.5%) patients. Our model achieved an optimized area under the curve in predicting death (0.785, 95% CI: 0.757-0.813) compared with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.747, P = 0.007), ischaemic stroke (0.691, 0.626-0.756) compared with CHA2DS2-VASc (0.613, P = 0.028), and major bleeding (0.698, 0.651-0.745) as opposed to HAS-BLED (0.607, P = 0.002), with improvement in net reclassification index (10.0, 12.5, and 23.6%, respectively).

Conclusion

The ML-GBDT model outperformed clinical risk scores in predicting the risks in patients with AF. This approach could be used as a single multifaceted holistic tool to optimize patient risk assessment and mitigate adverse outcomes when managing AF.

Meta-analysis on performance of ABC and GARFIELD-AF compared to CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients

BACKGROUND

When high thromboembolic and bleeding risks coexist, the former tends to influence physicians' decision making for anti-coagulation therapy. However, the ideal is to weigh the risk of major bleeding and stroke together to ensure effective anti-coagulation treatment, which is a limitation of traditional guideline recommended CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED. This meta-analysis assesses the performance of the two new scores - ABC and GARFIELD-AF compared to CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED for major bleeding and stroke outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane central were searched from 2010 to February 2023 that compared GARFIELD-AF and/or ABC with CHA2DS2-VASc and/or HAS-BLED scores using C-statistics to assess their discriminative ability.

RESULTS

12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. When assessing stroke risk prediction, GARFIELD-AF stroke (C-Statistic: 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.70-0.72; I2 = 0 %, p < 0.05) was found to be significantly better than ABC-stroke (C-Statistic: 0.67; 95 % CI: 0.65-0.68; I2 = 0 %, p < 0.05), and CHA2DS2-VASc (C-Statistic: 0.64; 95 % CI: 0.60-0.67; I2 = 92 %, p < 0.05). Additionally, when assessing bleeding risk prediction, ABC-bleeding (C-Statistic: 0.66; 95 % CI: 0.61-0.70; I2 = 84 %, p < 0.05), GARFIELD-AF (C-Statistic: 0.64; 95 % CI: 0.60-0.68; I2 = 95 %, p < 0.05), and HAS-BLED (C-Statistic: 0.64; 95 % CI: 0.62-0.66; I2 = 85 %, p < 0.05) all showed equivalent performances.

CONCLUSION

The GARFIELD-AF stroke score showed superior performance to the well-established CHA2DS2-VASc score as well as the ABC-stroke score. Therefore, new guidelines should favor GARFIELD-AF use in clinical practice.

Optimizing Atrial Fibrillation Care: Comparative Assessment of Anticoagulant Therapies and Risk Factors

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with various risk factors and significant morbidity and mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article presents findings from a study involving 345 patients with permanent AF. This study examined demographics, risk factors, associated pathologies, complications, and anticoagulant therapy over the course of a year.

RESULTS

The results showed a slight predominance of AF in males (55%), with the highest incidence in individuals aged 75 and older (49%). Common risk factors included arterial hypertension (54%), dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus type 2 (19.13%), and obesity (15.65%). Comorbidities such as congestive heart failure (35.6%), mitral valve regurgitation (60%), and dilated cardiomyopathy (32%) were prevalent among the patients. Major complications included congestive heart failure (32%), stroke (17%), and myocardial infarction (5%). Thromboembolic and bleeding risk assessment using CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores demonstrated a high thromboembolic risk in all patients. The majority of patients were receiving novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) before admission (73%), while NOACs were also the most prescribed antithrombotic therapy at discharge (61%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of risk factor management and appropriate anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF, to reduce complications and improve outcomes. The results support the importance of tailored therapeutic schemes, for optimal care of patients with AF.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and mortality risk in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Insights from the nationwide START registry

BACKGROUND

Arterial hypertension is the most common cardiovascular comorbidity in atrial fibrillation (AF). Few studies investigated management strategies of hypertension in AF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 5769 AF patients on oral anticoagulants from the nationwide ongoing Italian START registry. We investigated the prescription of antihypertensive drugs and mortality risk. Subgroup analyses according to sex and major cardiovascular comorbidities were performed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 80.8 years, 46.1% were women; 80.3% of patients were hypertensive. Furosemide (30.1%) was the most frequent diuretic followed by hydrochlorothiazide (15.4%) and potassium canrenoate (7.9%). 61.1% received β-blockers: 34.2% bisoprolol, 6.2% atenolol. Additionally, 36.9% were on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I): ramipril (20.9%), enalapril (5.3%) and perindopril (2.8%); 31.7% were on angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs): valsartan (7.6%) and irbesartan (6.4%). Amlodipine and lercanidipine were prescribed in 14.0% and 2.3%, respectively. ACE-I (p < 0.001), α-blockers (p = 0.020) and Dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers (p = 0.004) were more common in men, while ARBs (p = 0.008), thiazide diuretics (p < 0.001) and β-blockers (p < 0.001) in women. During 22.61 ± 17.1 months, 512 patients died. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that ACE-I (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.758, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.612-0.940, p = 0.012) and ARBs (HR 0.623, 95%CI 0.487-0.796, p < 0.001) inversely associated with mortality. ACE-I/ARBs inversely associated with mortality in both sexes and in patients with diabetes. This associastion was evident for ACE-I in patients with previous cardiovascular disease, and for ARBs in HF.

CONCLUSION

A lower mortality risk was found in AF patients on ACE-I/ARBs. Different prescription patterns of antihypertensive drugs between men and women do exist.

Country and health expenditure are major predictors of withholding anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of stroke

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high thromboembolic risk recommend oral anticoagulants (OACs) for preventing stroke and systemic embolism (SE). The reasons for guideline non-adherence are still unclear.

AIM

The aim is to identify clinical, demographic and non-patient characteristics associated with withholding OAC in patients with AF at high stroke risk.

METHODS

Patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF, newly diagnosed with AF between March 2010 and August 2016, and with CHA2DS2-VASc Score≥2 (excluding sex), were grouped by OAC treatment at enrolment. Factors associated with OAC non-use were analysed by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 40 416 eligible patients, 12 126 (30.0%) did not receive OACs at baseline. Globally, OAC prescription increased over time, from 60.4% in 2010-2011 to 74.7% in 2015-2016. Country of enrolment was the major predictor for OAC withholding (χ2-df=2576). Clinical predictors of OAC non-use included type of AF (χ2-df=404), history of bleeding (χ2-df=263) and vascular disease (χ2-df=99). OACs were used most frequently around the age of 75 years and decreasingly with younger as well as older age beyond 75 years (χ2-df=148). Non-cardiologists (χ2-df=201) and emergency room physicians (χ2-df=14) were less likely to prescribe OACs. OAC prescription correlated positively with country health expenditure.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one out of three AF patients did not receive OAC, while eligible according to the guidelines. Country of enrolment was the major determinant of anticoagulation strategy, while higher country health expenditure was associated with lower likelihood of withholding anticoagulation.

Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With or Without Comorbid Vascular Disease: Insights From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

BACKGROUND

Many patients with atrial fibrillation suffer from comorbid vascular disease. The comparative efficacy and safety of different types of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in this patient group have not been widely studied.

METHODS

Adults with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation were recruited into the prospective observational registry, GARFIELD-AF, and followed for 24 months. Associations of vascular disease with clinical outcomes were analyzed using adjusted hazard ratios (HR) obtained via Cox proportional-hazard modeling. Outcomes of OAC vs no OAC, and of non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment, were compared by overlap propensity-weighted Cox proportional-hazard models.

RESULTS

Of 51,574 atrial fibrillation patients, 25.9% had vascular disease. Among eligible atrial fibrillation patients, those with vascular disease received OAC less frequently than those without (63% vs 73%). Over 2-year follow-up, patients with vascular disease showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.47) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.97). OAC was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality and non-hemorrhagic stroke, and increased risk of major bleeding in non-vascular disease. In vascular disease, similar but non-significant trends existed for stroke and major bleeding. A significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) and major bleeding (HR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70) was observed in vascular disease patients treated with NOACs, compared with VKAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation patients with a history of vascular disease have worse long-term outcomes than those without. The association of NOACs vs VKA with clinical outcomes was more evident in atrial fibrillation patients with vascular disease.

Rhythm versus rate control in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation - Observations from the GARFIELD-AF registry

Background

Investigate real-world outcomes of early rhythm versus rate control in patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation.

Methods

The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF (GARFIELD-AF) is an international multi-centre, non-interventional prospective registry of newly diagnosed (≤6 weeks' duration) atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. Patients were stratified according to treatment initiated at baseline (≤48 days post enrolment), and outcome risks evaluated by overlap propensity weighted Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results

Of 45,382 non-permanent atrial fibrillation patients, 23,858 (52.6 %) received rhythm control and 21,524 (47.4 %) rate control. Rhythm-controlled patients had lower median age (68.0 [Q1;Q3: 60.0;76.0] versus 73.0 [65.0;79.0]), fewer histories of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (9.4 % versus 13.0 %), and lower expected probabilities of death (median GARFIELD-AF death score 4.0 [2.3;7.5] versus 5.1 [2.8;9.2]). The two groups had the same median CHA2DS2-VASc scores (3.0 [2.0;4.0]) and similar proportions of anticoagulated patients (rhythm control: 66.0 %, rate control: 65.5 %). The propensity-score-weighted hazard ratios of rhythm vs rate control (reference) were 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92, p-value < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (0.72-0.97, p-value 0.020) for non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism and 0.90 (0.78-1.04, p-value 0.164) for major bleeding.

Conclusion

Rhythm control strategy was initiated in about half of the patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular non-permanent atrial fibrillation. After balancing confounders, significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality and non-haemorrhagic stroke were observed in patients who received early rhythm control.

Predictors of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries

BACKGROUND

An unmet need exists to reliably predict the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs).

HYPOTHESIS

An externally validated model improves ICH risk stratification.

METHODS

Independent factors associated with ICH were identified by Cox proportional hazard modeling, using pooled data from the GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation) and ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registries. A predictive model was developed and validated by bootstrap sampling and by independent data from the Danish National Patient Register.

RESULTS

In the combined training data set, 284 of 53 878 anticoagulated patients had ICH over a 2-year period (0.31 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.35). Independent predictors of ICH included: older age, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, concomitant antiplatelet (AP) use, and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were associated with a significantly higher risk of ICH compared with non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.25-2.08; p = .0002). The ability of the model to discriminate individuals in the training set with and without ICH was fair (optimism-corrected C-statistic: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.65-0.71) and outperformed three previously published methods. Calibration between predicted and observed ICH probabilities was good in both training and validation data sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, prior ischemic events, concomitant AP therapy, and CKD were important risk factors for ICH in anticoagulated AF patients. Moreover, ICH was more frequent in patients receiving VKA compared to NOAC. The new validated model is a step toward mitigating this potentially lethal complication.

Optimising prediction of mortality, stroke, and major bleeding for patients with atrial fibrillation: validation of the GARFIELD-AF tool in UK primary care electronic records

BACKGROUND

The GARFIELD-AF tool is a novel risk tool that simultaneously assesses the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

AIM

To validate the GARFIELD-AF tool using UK primary care electronic records.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data and Office for National Statistics mortality data.

METHOD

Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration was evaluated using calibration-in-the-large regression and calibration plots.

RESULTS

A total of 486 818 patients aged ≥18 years with incident diagnosis of non-valvular AF between 2 January 1998 and 31 July 2020 were included; 50.6% (n = 246 425/486 818) received anticoagulation at diagnosis The GARFIELD- AF models outperformed the CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED scores in discrimination ability of death, stroke, and major bleeding at all the time points. The AUC for events at 1 year for the 2017 models were: death 0.747 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.744 to 0.751) versus 0.635 (95% CI = 0.631 to 0.639) for CHA2DS2VASc; stroke 0.666 (95% CI = 0.663 to 0.669) versus 0.625 (95% CI = 0.622 to 0.628) for CHA2DS2VASc; and major bleeding 0.602 (95% CI = 0.598 to 0.606) versus 0.558 (95% CI = 0.554 to 0.562) for HAS- BLED. Calibration between predicted and Kaplan- Meier observed events was inadequate with the GARFIELD-AF models.

CONCLUSION

The GARFIELD-AF models were superior to the CHA2DS2VASc score for discriminating stroke and death and superior to the HAS-BLED score for discriminating major bleeding. The models consistently underpredicted the level of risk, suggesting that a recalibration is needed to optimise its use in the UK population.

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry

AIMS

This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status.

METHODS

The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models.

RESULTS

Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC.

Risk of both intracranial hemorrhage and ischemic stroke in elderly individuals with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation taking direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin: Analysis of the ANAFIE registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) might have a higher risk of intracerebral hemorrhage. To investigate this, we compared the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and its subtypes, as well as ischemic stroke, in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin in a real-world setting. We also determined the baseline characteristics associated with both ICH and ischemic stroke.

METHODS

Patients aged ⩾ 75 years with documented NVAF enrolled in the prospective, multicenter, observational All Nippon Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly Registry between October 2016 and January 2018 were evaluated. The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of ischemic stroke and ICH. Secondary endpoints included subtypes of ICH.

RESULTS

Of 32,275 patients (13,793 women; median age, 81.0 years) analyzed, 21,585 (66.9%) were taking DOACs and 8233 (25.5%) were taking warfarin. During the median 1.88-year follow-up, 743 patients (1.24/100 person-years) developed ischemic stroke and 453 (0.75/100 person-years) developed ICH (intracerebral hemorrhage, 189; subarachnoid hemorrhage, 72; subdural/epidural hemorrhage, 190; unknown subtype, 2). The incidence of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.97), ICH (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.83), and subdural/epidural hemorrhage (aHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.72) was lower in DOAC users versus warfarin users. The incidence of fatal ICH and fatal subarachnoid hemorrhage was also lower in DOAC users versus warfarin users. Several baseline characteristics other than anticoagulants were also associated with the incidence of the endpoints. Of these, history of cerebrovascular disease (aHR 2.39, 95% CI 2.05-2.78), persistent NVAF, (aHR 1.90, 95% CI 1.53-2.36), and long-standing persistent/permanent NVAF (aHR 1.92, 95% CI 1.60-2.30) was strongly associated with ischemic stroke; severe hepatic disease (aHR 2.67, 95% CI 1.46-4.88) was strongly associated with overall ICH; and history of fall within 1 year was strongly associated with both overall ICH (aHR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76-2.97) and subdural/epidural hemorrhage (aHR 2.90, 95% CI 1.99-4.23).

CONCLUSION

Patients aged ⩾ 75 years with NVAF taking DOACs had lower risks of ischemic stroke, ICH, and subdural/epidural hemorrhage than those taking warfarin. Fall was strongly associated with the risks of intracranial and subdural/epidural hemorrhage.

DATA ACCESS STATEMENT

The individual de-identified participant data and study protocol will be shared for up to 36 months after the publication of the article. Access criteria for data sharing (including requests) will be decided on by a committee led by Daiichi Sankyo. To gain access, those requesting data access will need to sign a data access agreement. Requests should be directed to yamt-tky@umin.ac.jp.

Comparison of bleeding risk scores and evaluation of major bleeding predictive factors in patients with major bleeding due to vitamin K antagonist use

Background

Major bleeding in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is closely associated with an increased risk of death and major adverse outcomes in both the short and long term, but all bleeding events are associated with a reduced quality of life. Bleeding events are also known to reduce medication adherence. In this sense, bleeding risk scores are important tools to help predict major bleeding. However, it is not clear which scoring system is superior.

Aim

In this study, our aim was to compare bleeding risk scores and to examine the factors associated with bleeding in patients with major bleeding while using vitamin K antagonists.

Methods

In this retrospective and single-center study, scoring, laboratory and demographic data were analyzed with SPSS 20.0 statistical program.

Results

The mean age of a total of 1434 patients included in our study was 68.2 ± 11.3 years, range was 39-93 years and 769 (53.6%) of these patients were male. Of 588 patients with major bleeding, 93 (15.8%) had intracranial hemorrhage. Logistic regression analysis comparing the scoring systems among themselves revealed that the GARFIELD-AF scoring system had a predictive effect on major bleeding independent of the effect of other scoring systems (OR: 1.532, 95% CI 1.348-1.741, p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for GARFIELD-AF was 0.690 (0.662-0.718) as a result of the ROC analysis considering the best cut-off point of 3.2% calculated for 2 years. AUC 0.659 (0.630-0.687) for HAS-BLED, AUC 0.636 (0.606-0.665) for ORBIT and AUC 0.611 (0.5810.642) for ATRIA. When we compare the patient group with the control group, it can be said that intracranial hemorrhage occurred independently of INR and TTR values, unlike in the major bleeding group (p:0.129, p:0.545).

Conclusion

In patients using vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation, the GARFIELD-AF risk score was found to be superior to important bleeding risk scores such as HAS-BLED, ORBIT and ATRIA in terms of predicting major bleeding. It is an important result that intracranial hemorrhages, which have a special place among major hemorrhages, were independent of INR and TTR levels. It is noteworthy that 8.2% of patients with major bleeding had a history of minor bleeding in the last year.

Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Hemophilia: an EHA-ISTH-EAHAD-ESO Clinical Practice Guidance

Cardiovascular disease is an emerging medical issue in patients with hemophilia (PWH) and its prevalence is increasing up to 15% in PWH in the United States. Atrial fibrillation, acute and chronic coronary syndromes, venous thromboembolism, and cerebral thrombosis are frequent thrombotic or prothrombotic situations, which require a careful approach to fine-tune the delicate balance between thrombosis and hemostasis in PWH when using both procoagulant and anticoagulant treatments. Generally, PWH could be considered as being naturally anticoagulated when clotting factors are <20 IU/dL, but specific recommendations in patients with very low levels according to the different clinical situations are lacking and mainly based on the anecdotal series. For PWH with baseline clotting factor levels >20 IU/dL in need for any form of antithrombotic therapy, usually treatment without additional clotting factor prophylaxis could be used, but careful monitoring for bleeding is recommended. For antiplatelet treatment, this threshold could be lower with single-antiplatelet agent, but again factor level should be at least 20 IU/dL for dual antiplatelet treatment. In this complex growing scenario, the European Hematology Association in collaboration with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the European Association for Hemophilia and Allied Disorders, the European Stroke Organization, and a representative of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis has produced this current guidance document to provide clinical practice recommendations for health care providers who care for PWH.

External validation of bleeding risk models for the prediction of long-term bleeding risk in patients with established cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

The long-term predictive performance of existing bleeding risk models in patients with various manifestations of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not well known. This study aims to assess and compare the performance of relevant existing bleeding risk models in estimating the long-term risk of major bleeding in a cohort of patients with established CVD.

METHODS

Seven existing bleeding risk models (PRECISE-DAPT, DAPT, Ducrocq et al, de Vries et al, S₂TOP-BLEED, Intracranial B₂LEED₃S and HAS-BLED) were identified and externally validated in 7,249 patients with established CVD included in the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-second manifestations of arterial disease study. Predictive performance was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration, both at 10 years and the original prediction horizon of the models. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 8.4 years (interquartile range 4.5-12.5), a total of 233 (3.2%) major bleeding events occurred. C-statistics for discrimination at 10 years ranged from 0.53 (95%CI 0.49-0.57) to 0.64 (95%CI 0.60-0.68). Calibration plots after recalibration to 10 years showed best agreement between predicted and observed bleeding risk for De Vries et al, S₂TOP-BLEED, DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of existing bleeding risk models to predict long-term bleeding in patients with CVD varied. Discrimination and calibration were best for the models of de Vries et al, S₂TOP-BLEED, DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT. Of these, recalibrated models requiring the least predictors may be preferred for use to personalize prevention with antithrombotic therapy.

Challenges of Anticoagulant Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation-Focus on Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The rising prevalence and the complexity of atrial fibrillation (AF) pose major clinical challenges. Stroke prevention is accompanied by non-negligible risks, making anticoagulant treatment an ongoing challenge for the clinician. Current guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin for stroke prevention in most AF patients, mainly due to the ease of their use. However, assessing the bleeding risk in patients receiving oral anticoagulants remains-particularly in the case of DOACs-highly challenging. Using dose-adjusted warfarin increases threefold the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Although the overall bleeding risk appears to be lower, the use of DOACs has been associated with an increased risk of GIB compared to warfarin. Accurate bleeding (including GIB-specific) risk scores specific for DOACs remain to be developed. Until then, the assessment of bleeding risk factors remains the only available tool, although the extent to which each of these factors contributes to the risk of bleeding is unknown. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of the bleeding risk associated with oral anticoagulant therapy in AF patients, with a highlight on the latest insights into GIB associated with oral anticoagulation; we emphasize questions that remain to be answered; and we identify hotspots for future research.

Comprehensive comparison of stroke risk score performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis among 6 267 728 patients with atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Multiple risk scores to predict ischaemic stroke (IS) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been developed. This study aims to systematically review these scores, their validations and updates, assess their methodological quality, and calculate pooled estimates of the predictive performance.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies developing, validating, or updating risk scores for IS in AF patients. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). To assess discrimination, pooled c-statistics were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 19 scores, which were validated and updated once or more in 70 and 40 studies, respectively, including 329 validations and 76 updates-nearly all on the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2. Pooled c-statistics were calculated among 6 267 728 patients and 359 373 events of IS. For the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2, pooled c-statistics were 0.644 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.635-0.653] and 0.658 (0.644-0.672), respectively. Better discriminatory abilities were found in the newer risk scores, with the modified-CHADS2 demonstrating the best discrimination [c-statistic 0.715 (0.674-0.754)]. Updates were found for the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 only, showing improved discrimination. Calibration was reasonable but available for only 17 studies. The PROBAST indicated a risk of methodological bias in all studies.

CONCLUSION

Nineteen risk scores and 76 updates are available to predict IS in patients with AF. The guideline-endorsed CHA2DS2-VASc shows inferior discriminative abilities compared with newer scores. Additional external validations and data on calibration are required before considering the newer scores in clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID CRD4202161247 (PROSPERO).

Universal Clinician Device for improving risk prediction and management of patients with atrial fibrillation: an assumed benefit analysis

Aim

Atrial fibrillation (AF) management guidelines advise using risk tools to optimize AF treatment. This study aims to develop a dynamic and clinically applicable digital device to assess stroke and bleeding risk, and to facilitate outcome improvements in AF patients. The device will provide tailored treatment recommendations according to easily attainable individual patient data.

Methods and Results

This Universal Clinician Device (UCD) was created using the GARFIELD-AF registry using a split sample approach. The GARFIELD-AF risk tool was adapted with two modifications. First, predictors with ≥1000 missing data points were separated, allowing expected risks estimation. Second, recommendations for modifiable risk factors and associated 2-year outcome estimates were incorporated. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and major bleeding. All patients were randomized to a derivation (n = 34853) and validation cohort (n = 17165). In the derivation cohort, predictors were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression. Cox models were fitted with the selected parameters. The UCD demonstrated superior predictive power compared with CHA₂DS₂VASc for all-cause mortality [0.75(0.75-0.76) vs. 0.71(0.70-0.72)] and non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE [0.68(0.66-0.70) vs. 0.65(0.63-0.67)], and with HAS-BLED for major bleeding [0.69(0.67-0.71) vs. 0.64(0.62-0.65)]. Universal Clinician Device recommendations reduced all-cause mortality (8.45-5.42%) and non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (2.58-1.50%). Patients with concomitant diabetes and chronic kidney disease benefitted further, reducing mortality risk from 13.15% to 8.67%. One-third of patients with a CHA₂DS₂VASc score of >1 had the lowest risk of stroke.

Conclusion

The UCD simultaneously predicts mortality, stroke, and bleeding risk in patients using easily attainable individual clinical data and guideline-based optimized treatment plans.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF: NCT01090362.

Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) following the introduction of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not well known.

AIM

To determine the 2-year outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with AF, and the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a prospective observational cohort study in UK primary care.

METHOD

In total, 3574 patients aged ≥18 years with a new AF diagnosis were enrolled. A propensity score was applied using an overlap weighting scheme to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation on the occurrence of death, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding within 2 years of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 65.8% received anticoagulant therapy, 20.8% received an antiplatelet only, and 13.4% received neither. During the study period, the overall incidence rates of all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 4.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.69 to 4.65), 1.45 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.77), and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.50) per 100 person-years, respectively. Anticoagulation treatment compared with no anticoagulation treatment was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.93), significantly lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (aHR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62), and a non-significant higher risk of major bleeding (aHR 1.31, 95% CI = 0.77 to 2.24).

CONCLUSION

The data support a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing stroke and death, without an increased risk of a major bleed in patients with new-onset AF. Anticoagulation treatment in patients at high risk of stroke who are not receiving anticoagulation may further improve outcomes.