-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Leif Friberg, Mårten Rosenqvist, Gregory Y.H. Lip, Evaluation of risk stratification schemes for ischaemic stroke and bleeding in 182 678 patients with atrial fibrillation: the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort study, European Heart Journal, Volume 33, Issue 12, June 2012, Pages 1500–1510, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr488
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
The impact of some risk factors for stroke and bleeding, and the value of stroke and bleeding risk scores, in atrial fibrillation (AF), has been debated, as clinical trial cohorts have not adequately tested these. Our objective was to investigate risk factors for stroke and bleeding in AF, and application of the new CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED schemes for stroke and bleeding risk assessments, respectively.
We used the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort study, a nationwide cohort study of 182 678 subjects with a diagnosis of AF at any Swedish hospital between 1 July 2005 and 31 December 2008, who were prospectively followed for an average of 1.5 years (260 000 years at risk). With the use of the National Swedish Drug Registry, all patients who used an oral anticoagulant anytime during follow-up were identified. Most of the analyses were made on a subset of 90 490 patients who never used anticoagulants. Risk factors for stroke, the composite thromboembolism endpoint (stroke, TIA, or systemic embolism), and bleeding, and the performance of published stroke and bleeding risk stratification schemes were investigated. On multivariable analysis, significant associations were found between the following ‘new’ risk factors and thromboembolic events; peripheral artery disease [hazard ratio (HR) 1.22 (95% CI 1.12–1.32)], ‘vascular disease’ [HR 1.14 (1.06–1.23)], prior myocardial infarction [HR 1.09 (1.03–1.15)], and female gender [HR 1.17 (1.11–1.22)]. Previous embolic events, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), hypertension, diabetes, and renal failure were other independent predictors of the composite thromboembolism endpoint, while thyroid disease (or hyperthyroidism) was not an independent stroke risk factor. C-statistics for the composite thromboembolic endpoint with the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc schemes were 0.66 (0.65–0.66) and 0.67 (0.67–0.68), respectively. On multivariable analysis, age, prior ischaemic stroke or thromboembolism, prior major bleeding events, and hypertension were significant predictors of ICH and major bleeding. Heart failure, diabetes, renal failure, liver disease, anaemia or platelet/coagulation defect, alcohol abuse, and cancer were other significant predictors for major bleeding, but not ICH. The ability for predicting ICH and major bleeding with both bleeding risk schemes (HEMORR2HAGES, HAS-BLED) were similar, with c-statistics of ∼0.6.
Several independent risk factors (prior ICH, myocardial infarction, vascular disease, and renal failure) predict ischaemic stroke and/or the composite thromboembolism endpoint in AF, but thyroid disease (or hyperthyroidism) was not an independent risk factor for stroke. There is a better performance for CHA2DS2-VASc over CHADS2 schemes for the composite thromboembolism endpoint. While both tested bleeding risk schemes have similar predictive value, the HAS-BLED score has the advantage of simplicity.
Comments
Dr Jolobe asks for a re-evaluation of aspirin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly in low risk patients.
The evidence for the efficacy of aspirin in AF is weak, with the potential for harm [1] - in our Eur Heart J paper he refers to, the rates of major bleeding (and intracranial bleeding) when stratified by HAS-BLED score did not differ between warfarin and aspirin. There is only one single positive aspirin trial, SPAF-I which used aspirin 325mg od, with important internal heterogeneity for the aspirin effect [1]. Asprin was also ineffective for those age>75 and it did not prevent severe strokes.
Even in low risk patients, aspirin was no better than control in reducing thromboembolism, with an increase in bleeding risks [2].
In this particular Swedish cohort the CHA2DS2-VASc score only had a modest c-statistic, but it would be misleading to make comparisons of c- statistics in one study compared to another. The c-statistic is also not the best comparison of the value of risk prediction tools, and the Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) and Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) are better methods [3].
Indeed, the obsession to pick out 'high risk' patients with AF should be replaced by the risk factor based approach advocated in the ESC guidelines on AF, to focus on identifying 'truly low risk' AF patients who do not need any antithrombotic therapy, whilst those with one or more stroke risk factors can be offered effective stroke prevention, which is oral anticoagulation (whether as well controlled adjusted dose warfarin or one of the novel anticoagulants) [4].
If the focus is identification of 'low risk' then the CHADS2 score is not the one to use. In one recent analysis [3], patients with a CHADS2 score=0 can have an stroke rate that ranged between 0.8% to 3.2%, when substratified by CHA2DS2-VASc score. The latter score has consistently been shown to be a good predictor of low risk patients.
Finally, when balancing stroke against serious bleeding, there is no category of patient that aspirin had any net clinical benefit, whilst anticoagulation had a non-negative net clinical benefit in most AF patients apart from those with a CHA2DS2-VASC score=0, reflecting their 'truly low risk' status [5].
1. Lip GY. The role of aspirin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Jul 26;8(10):602-6.
2. Sato H, Ishikawa K, Kitabatake A, Ogawa S, Maruyama Y, Yokota Y, Fukuyama T, Doi Y, Mochizuki S, Izumi T, Takekoshi N, Yoshida K, Hiramori K, Origasa H, Uchiyama S, Matsumoto M, Yamaguchi T, Hori M; Japan Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Trial Group. Low-dose aspirin for prevention of stroke in low-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Japan Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Trial. Stroke. 2006 Feb;37(2):447-51
3. Olesen JB, Torp-Pedersen C, Hansen ML, Lip GY. The value of the CHA2DS2 -VASc score for refining stroke risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHADS2 score 0-1: A nationwide cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2012 May 31;107(6):1172-9.
4. Lip GY, Tse HF, Lane DA. Atrial fibrillation. Lancet. 2012 Feb 18;379(9816):648-61.
5. Olesen JB, Lip GY, Lindhardsen J, Lane DA, Ahlehoff O, Hansen ML, Rauns? J, Tolstrup JS, Hansen PR, Gislason GH, Torp-Pedersen C. Risks of thromboembolism and bleeding with thromboprophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation: A net clinical benefit analysis using a 'real world' nationwide cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2011 Oct;106(4):739-49.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
The documentation of suboptimal performance of current schemes for stratifying the risk of ischaemic stroke in atrial fibrillation(AF)(1) signals an opportunity to re-evaluate the rationale for recommending the use of low-dose aspirin for prophylaxis against ischaemic stroke in patients deemed to be at low risk of AF-related thromboembolism(2). Given the suboptimal performance of the CHA2DS2-Vasc scheme(C-statistic 0.67 for composite thromboembolic end point) in the study by Friberg et al(1) how can we be sure that the patients categorised by that scheme as having a score of 0-1 will have their risk of embolic stroke reduced even further by aspirin when the thromboprophylactic benefit of aspirin(dose range 50- 200 mg/day) in undifferentiated patients with nonvalvular AF(NVAF) is characterised by 95% confidence intervals of the order of 2% to 38%?(3). The justification for aspirin is even lower when one takes into account the fact that aspirin doses up to 200 mg/day confer no thromboprophylactic benefit in NVAF(4), and that "much of the beneficial effect of aspirin[in NVAF] was driven by the results of one single positive trial..."(2), and that was a trial which utilised a dose of 325 mg/day(5). And yet low dose aspirin(75-100 mg/day) continues to be used in NVAF patients managed with rate control(6). Arguably, when the intended benefit is reduction of ischaemic stroke, the only remaining indication for the use of asprin in NVAF is the coexistence of high-risk carotid artery disease. Accordingly, all AF patients with low CHA2DS2-Vasc scores should have carotid artery imaging so as to inform the decision whether or not to prescribe aspirin.
References
(1) Friberg L., Rosenqvists M., Lip GYH Evaluation of risk stratification schemes for ischaemic stroke and bleeding in 182678 patients with atrial fibrillation; the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort study Eur Heart J 2012;33:1500-1510
(2) Camm AJ., Kirchhof P., Lip GYH et al on behalf of the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation Eur Heart J 2010;31:2369-2429
(3) Lip GYH., Boos CJ Antithrombotic treatment in atrial fibrillation Heart 2006;92:1550161
(4) Jolobe OMP The choice of asprin dose for primary prevention of embolic complications of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation(letter) JAGS 2009;57:72-73
(5) Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Final Results Circulation 1991;84:527-39 (6)Lafuente-Lafuente C., Emery C., Laurendeau C., Faganani F., Bergman J- F Long tern treatment of atrial fibrillation in elderly patients: a decision analysis International Journal of Cardiology 2012;155:102-109
Conflict of Interest:
None declared