DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A PREDICTION RULE FOR BENEFIT AND HARM OF ORAL ANTICOAGULATION IN NON-VALVULAR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

Sergio Raposeiras-Roubin,Tze-Fan Chao,Emad Abu-Assi,Yi-Hsin Chan,Inmaculada González Bermúdez,Jo-Nan Liao,Ling Kuo,ROCIO González-Ferreiro,Andres Iniguez
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.20.24309269
2024-06-21
Abstract:Background. Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC) remains the gold standard for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In real life, there are patients who do not receive OAC due to high bleeding risk. In those patients, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has emerged as a potential alternative for stroke prevention. With this study, we aimed to develop a clinical decision tool to identify patients expected to derive harm vs benefit from OAC therapy. Methods. Among 14,915 AF patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 1 (2 for women) from CardioCHUVI-AF registry (78% with OAC), a prediction rule was derived using a linear regression model to predict the stroke-bleeding balance. This rule was externally validated in the Taiwan AF registry, with 26,595 patients (70.5% with non OAC therapy). Results. A simplified risk score was created using 7 clinical variables. The low-score group (≤ -8 points) was associated with higher rates of bleeding than stroke (7.25 vs 1.11 and 3.27 vs 2.58 per 100 patients/year in derivation and validation cohorts, respectively; p<0.001). In those patients, OAC was harmful. In contrast, high-score group (≥ +6 points) was associated with higher stroke risk than bleeding risk (2.32 vs 1.71 and 4.19 vs 1.64 per 100 patients/year in derivation and validation cohorts, respectively; p<0.001), with great benefit of OAC therapy. Conclusions. A prediction rule balancing stroke and bleeding risks correctly identify patients with harm vs benefit from OAC therapy. This rule requires further prospective evaluation to assess potential effects on patient care to select candidates for LAAC.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?