Scores to predict major bleeding risk during oral anticoagulation therapy: a prospective validation study.

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.

Estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a comparison of several risk scores: the Cohorte Lausannoise study.

To compare in the Swiss population the results of several scores estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This was a single-center, cross-sectional study conducted between 2003 and 2006 in Lausanne, Switzerland. Overall, 3,251 women and 2,937 men, aged 35-75 years, were assessed, of which 5,760 (93%) were free from diabetes and included in the current study. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was assessed using seven different risk scores, including clinical data with or without biological data. Participants were considered to be eligible for primary prevention according to the thresholds provided for each score. The results were then extrapolated to the Swiss population of the same sex and age. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased with age in all scores. The prevalence of participants at high risk ranged between 1.6 and 24.9% in men and between 1.1 and 15.7% in women. Extrapolated to the Swiss population of similar age, the overall number of participants at risk, and thus susceptible to intervention, ranged between 46,708 and 636,841. In addition, scores that included the same clinical variables led to a significantly different prevalence of participants at risk (4.2% [95% CI 3.4-5.0] vs. 12.8% [11.5-14.1] in men and 2.9% [2.4-3.6] vs. 6.0% [5.2-6.9] in women). CONCLUSIONS; The prevalence of participants at risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent type 2 diabetes, risk-scoring systems must be validated for each population considered.

Comparison of clinical and angiographic prognostic risk scores in elderly patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and referred for percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk prediction models have been validated in all-age patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, they have not been validated specifically in the elderly. METHODS: We calculated the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score, the logistic EuroSCORE, the AMIS (Acute Myocardial Infarction Swiss registry) score, and the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) score in a consecutive series of 114 patients ≥75 years presenting with ACS and treated with PCI within 24 hours of hospital admission. Patients were stratified according to score tertiles and analysed retrospectively by comparing the lower/mid tertiles as an aggregate group with the higher tertile group. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were the composite of death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30 days, and 1-year MACE-free survival. Model discrimination ability was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was higher in the upper tertile compared with the aggregate lower/mid tertiles according to the logistic EuroSCORE (42% vs 5%; odds ratio [OR] = 14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4-48; p <0.001; AUC = 0.79), the GRACE score (40% vs 4%; OR = 17, 95% CI = 4-64; p <0.001; AUC = 0.80), the AMIS score (40% vs 4%; OR = 16, 95% CI = 4-63; p <0.001; AUC = 0.80), and the SYNTAX score (37% vs 5%; OR = 11, 95% CI = 3-37; p <0.001; AUC = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients presenting with ACS and referred to PCI within 24 hours of admission, the GRACE score, the EuroSCORE, the AMIS score, and the SYNTAX score predicted 30 day mortality. The predictive value of clinical scores was improved by using them in combination.

Prospective comparison of clinical prognostic scores in elderly patients with pulmonary embolism.

Background: The Geneva Prognostic Score (GPS), the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), and its simplified version (sPESI) are well known clinical prognostic scores for pulmonary embolism (PE).Objectives: To compare the prognostic performance of these scores in elderly patients with PE. Patients/Methods: In a multicenter Swiss cohort of elderly patients with venous thromboembolism, we prospectively studied 449 patients aged ≥65 years with symptomatic PE. The outcome was 30-day overall mortality. We dichotomized patients as low- vs. higher-risk in all three scores using the following thresholds: GPS scores ≤2 vs. >2, PESI risk classes I-II vs. III-V, and sPESI scores 0 vs. ≥1. We compared 30-day mortality in low- vs. higher-risk patients and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results: Overall, 3.8% of patients (17/449) died within 30 days. The GPS classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (92% [413/449]) than the PESI (36.3% [163/449]) and the sPESI (39.6% [178/449]) (P<0.001 for each comparison). Low-risk patients based on the sPESI had a mortality of 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-2.1%) compared to 0.6% (95% CI 0-3.4%) for low-risk patients based on the PESI and 3.4% (95% CI 1.9-5.6%) for low-risk patients based on the GPS. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.77 (95%CI 0.72-0.81), 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80), and 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively (P=0.47). Conclusions: In this cohort of elderly patients with PE, the GPS identified a higher proportion of patients as low-risk but the PESI and sPESI were more accurate in predicting mortality.