Background: Clinical scores may help physicians to better assess the individual risk/benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy. We aimed to externally validate and compare the prognostic performance of 7 clinical prediction scores for major bleeding events during oral anticoagulation therapy.
Methods: We followed 515 adult patients taking oral anticoagulants to measure the first major bleeding event over a 12-month follow-up period. The performance of each score to predict the risk of major bleeding and the physician's subjective assessment of bleeding risk were compared with the C statistic.
Results: The cumulative incidence of a first major bleeding event during follow-up was 6.8% (35/515). According to the 7 scoring systems, the proportions of major bleeding ranged from 3.0% to 5.7% for low-risk, 6.7% to 9.9% for intermediate-risk, and 7.4% to 15.4% for high-risk patients. The overall predictive accuracy of the scores was poor, with the C statistic ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 and not significantly different from each other (P=.84). Only the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score performed slightly better than would be expected by chance (C statistic, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.70). The performance of the scores was not statistically better than physicians' subjective risk assessments (C statistic, 0.55; P=.94).
Conclusion: The performance of 7 clinical scoring systems in predicting major bleeding events in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy was poor and not better than physicians' subjective assessments.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.