» Articles » PMID: 24682387

Lack of Concordance Between Empirical Scores and Physician Assessments of Stroke and Bleeding Risk in Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) Registry

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 (CHADS2) 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 (<3%); intermediate risk (3%-6%); and high risk (>6%). Overall, 72% (n=7251) in ORBIT-AF had high-risk CHADS2 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.

Citing Articles

Impact of insurance coverage for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants on quality of care and care disparities in patients hospitalised with atrial fibrillation in tertiary hospitals in China: interrupted time series analysis.

Yang N, Sun Z, Liu J, Hao Y, Long D, Zhao D BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e088539.

PMID: 39986999 PMC: 11848658. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088539.


Contemporary trends and barriers to oral anticoagulation therapy in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation during DOAC predominant era.

Sehrawat O, Kashou A, Van Houten H, Cohen K, Joe Henk H, Gersh B Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2023; 46:101212.

PMID: 37168417 PMC: 10164915. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2023.101212.


Clinical Characteristics, Patterns of Use, and incidence of Adverse Events in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulants in Colombia.

Machado-Duque M, Gaviria-Mendoza A, Reyes J, Mesa A, Castano-Gamboa N, Valladales-Restrepo L Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2023; 19:157-167.

PMID: 37008594 PMC: 10065118. DOI: 10.2147/VHRM.S391549.


Antithrombotic strategy variability in atrial fibrillation and obstructive coronary disease revascularised with percutaneous coronary intervention: primary results from the AVIATOR 2 international registry.

Chandrasekhar J, Baber U, Sartori S, Goel R, Nicolas J, Vogel B EuroIntervention. 2022; 18(8):e656-e665.

PMID: 35656720 PMC: 10241278. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01044.


Prescribing of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in primary care.

Martinez K, Eckman M, Pappas M, Rothberg M J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2022; 54(4):616-624.

PMID: 35449383 PMC: 10481404. DOI: 10.1007/s11239-022-02655-z.


References
1.
Coyne K, Paramore C, Grandy S, Mercader M, Reynolds M, Zimetbaum P . Assessing the direct costs of treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the United States. Value Health. 2006; 9(5):348-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00124.x. View

2.
Friberg L, Rosenqvist M, Lip G . Evaluation of risk stratification schemes for ischaemic stroke and bleeding in 182 678 patients with atrial fibrillation: the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(12):1500-10. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr488. View

3.
Brand D, Newcomer L, Freiburger A, Tian H . Cardiologists' practices compared with practice guidelines: use of beta-blockade after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 26(6):1432-6. DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00362-2. View

4.
Sandhu R, Bakal J, Ezekowitz J, McAlister F . Risk stratification schemes, anticoagulation use and outcomes: the risk--treatment paradox in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Heart. 2011; 97(24):2046-50. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300901. View

5.
Keogh C, Wallace E, Dillon C, Dimitrov B, Fahey T . Validation of the CHADS2 clinical prediction rule to predict ischaemic stroke. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2011; 106(3):528-38. DOI: 10.1160/TH11-02-0061. View