Cited by 229Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management

Predicting thromboembolic and bleeding event risk in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review

Open access
Borre, Ethan, Goode, Adam, Raitz, Giselle, Shah, Bimal, Lowenstern, Angela, Chatterjee, Ranee, Sharan, Lauren, Allen LaPointe, Nancy +7 more·2018·Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Abstract

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of stroke. Medical therapy for decreasing stroke risk involves anticoagulation, which may increase bleeding risk for certain patients. In determining the optimal therapy for stroke prevention for patients with AF, clinicians use tools with various clinical, imaging and patient characteristics to weigh stroke risk against therapy-associated bleeding risk. Aim This article reviews published literature and summarizes available risk stratification tools for stroke and bleeding prediction in patients with AF. Methods We searched for English-language studies in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2018. Two reviewers screened citations for studies that examined tools for predicting thromboembolic and bleeding risks in patients with AF. Data regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions, outcomes, quality, and applicability were extracted. Results Sixty-one studies were relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk and 38 to predicting bleeding risk. Data suggest that CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc and the age, biomarkers, and clinical history (ABC) risk scores have the best evidence for predicting thromboembolic risk (moderate strength of evidence for limited prediction ability of each score) and that HAS-BLED has the best evidence for predicting bleeding risk (moderate strength of evidence). Limitations Studies were heterogeneous in methodology and populations of interest, setting, interventions and outcomes analysed. Conclusion CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc and ABC scores have the best prediction for stroke events, and HAS-BLED provides the best prediction for bleeding risk. Future studies should define the role of imaging tools and biomarkers in enhancing the accuracy of risk prediction tools. Primary Funding Source Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PROSPERO #CRD42017069999)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0038-1675400

Cites

136 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 145 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Available at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview. Accessed November 27, 2017. 21433403

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borre, E., Goode, A., Raitz, G., Shah, B., Lowenstern, A., Chatterjee, R., Sharan, L., Allen LaPointe, N., Yapa, R., Davis, J., Lallinger, K., Schmidt, R., Kosinski, A., Al-Khatib, S., & Sanders, G.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States
Corresponding author
Sanders, Gillian
Venue
Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Published
2018-10-30
Volume
118
Issue
12
Pages
2171-2187
ISSN
  • 0340-6245 (ISSN-L)
  • 2567-689X
OpenAlex
W2899484044
Cited by
229
References
145
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Thrombosis and Haemostasis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32hl069749-20)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32-HL069749)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007171)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
non-valvular atrial fibrillation, stroke risk prediction, bleeding risk prediction, thromboembolic risk, risk stratification tools, HAS-BLED score, VASc score, anticoagulation, stroke prevention
MeSH terms
Atrial Fibrillation, Blood Coagulation, Hemorrhage, Humans, Risk, Thromboembolism, United States, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review