4.5 Article

Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: Results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF)

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 151, 期 3, 页码 713-719

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.04.017

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [R01 HS10133] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although warfarin and other anticoagulants can prevent ischemic events, they can cause hemorrhage. Quantifying the rate of hemorrhage is crucial for determining the risks and net benefits of prescribing antithrombotic therapy. Our objective was to find a bleeding classification scheme that could quantify the risk of hemorrhage in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods We combined bleeding risk factors from existing classification schemes into a new scheme, HEMORR(2)HAGES, and validated all bleeding classification schemes. We scored HEMORR(2)HAGES by adding 2 points for a prior bleed and 1 point for each of the other risk factors: hepatic or renal disease, ethanol abuse, malignancy, older (age > 75 years), reduced platelet count or function, hypertension (uncontrolled), anemia, genetic factors, excessive fall risk, and stroke. We used data from quality improvement organizations representing 7 states to assemble a registry of 3791 Medicare beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation. Results There were 162 hospital admissions with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for hemorrhage. With each additional point, the rate of bleeding per 100 patient-years of war forin increased: 1.9 for 0, 2.5 for 1, 5.3 for 2, 8.4 for 3, 10.4 for 4, and 12.3 for : 5 points. In patients prescribed warfarin, HEMORR(2)HAGES had greater predictive accuracy (c statistic 0.67) than other bleed prediction schemes (P < .001). Conclusions Adaptations of existing classification schemes, especially anew bleeding risk scheme, HEMORR(2)HAGES, can quantify the risk of hemorrhage and aid in the management of antithrombotic therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据