Lack of Concordance Between Empirical Scores and Physician Assessments of Stroke and Bleeding Risk in Atrial Fibrillation
Authors:
- Benjamin A. SteinbergBSBenjamin A. Steinberg
- Sunghee KimSKSunghee Kim
- Laine ThomasLTLaine Thomas
- Gregg C. FonarowGFGregg C. Fonarow
- Elaine HylekEHElaine Hylek
- Jack AnsellJAJack Ansell
- Alan S. GoAGAlan S. Go
- Paul ChangPCPaul Chang
- Peter KoweyPKPeter Kowey
- Bernard J. GershBGBernard J. Gersh
- Kenneth W. MahaffeyKMKenneth W. Mahaffey
- Daniel E. SingerDSDaniel E. Singer
- 20 May 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Circulation
- Vol. 129 (20) , 2005-2012
Abstract
Background—: Physicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) must weigh the benefits of anticoagulation in preventing stroke versus the risk of bleeding. Although empirical models have been developed to predict such risks, the degree to which these coincide with clinicians’ estimates is unclear. Methods and Results—: We examined 10 094 AF patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) registry between June 2010 and August 2011. Empirical stroke and bleeding risks were assessed by using the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS 2 ) and Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores, respectively. Separately, physicians were asked to categorize their patients’ stroke and bleeding risks: low risk (6%). Overall, 72% (n=7251) in ORBIT-AF had high-risk CHADS 2 scores (≥2). However, only 16% were assessed as high stroke risk by physicians. Although 17% (n=1749) had high ATRIA bleeding risk (score ≥5), only 7% (n=719) were considered so by physicians. The associations between empirical and physician-estimated stroke and bleeding risks were low (weighted Kappa 0.1 and 0.11, respectively). Physicians weighed hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus less significantly than empirical models in estimating stroke risk; physicians weighted anemia and dialysis less significantly than empirical models when estimating bleeding risks. Anticoagulation use was highest among patients with high stroke risk, assessed by either empirical model or physician estimates. In contrast, physician and empirical estimates of bleeding had limited impact on treatment choice. Conclusions—: There is little agreement between provider-assessed risk and empirical scores in AF. These differences may explain, in part, the current divergence of anticoagulation treatment decisions from guideline recommendations. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Performance of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED Bleeding Risk–Prediction Scores in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing AnticoagulationJACC, 2012
- Evaluation of risk stratification schemes for ischaemic stroke and bleeding in 182 678 patients with atrial fibrillation: the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort studyEuropean Heart Journal, 2012
- Risk stratification schemes, anticoagulation use and outcomes: the risk-treatment paradox in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillationHeart, 2011
- Outcomes registry for better informed treatment of atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of ORBIT-AFAmerican Heart Journal, 2011
- A New Risk Scheme to Predict Warfarin-Associated HemorrhageJACC, 2011
- Validation of the CHADS2 clinical prediction rule to predict ischaemic strokeThrombosis and Haemostasis, 2011
- Assessing the Direct Costs of Treating Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in the United StatesValue in Health, 2006
- Sins of omissionJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2005
- Cardiologists' practices compared with practice guidelines: Use of beta-blockade after acute myocardial infarctionJACC, 1995
- Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study.Stroke, 1991