To assess bleeding risk of patients treated by oral anticoagulants, several scores have been constructed to assist physicians in the evaluation of the benefit risk. Most of these scores lack a strong enough level of evidence for use in family practice.
To assess the predictive prognostic accuracy of 13 scores designed to assess the risk of major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding events in a French ambulatory cohort receiving Vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in a family practice setting.
CACAO (Comparison of Accidents and their Circumstances with Oral Anticoagulants) was a multicentre prospective cohort of ambulatory patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. We selected patients from the cohort who had received an oral anticoagulant because of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and/or venous thromboembolism (VTE) to be followed during one year by their GP. The following scores were calculated: mOBRI, Shireman, Kuijer, HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, HAS-BLED, RIETE, VTE-BLEED, ACCP score, Rutherford, ABH-Score, GARFIEL-AF, and Outcomes Registry for Better InformedTreatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT). Prognostic accuracy was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic curves and c-statistics.
During 1 year, 3,082 patients were followed. All of the scores demonstrated only poor to moderate ability to predict major bleeding or CRNM in NVAF patients on DOACs (c-statistic: 0.41-0.66 and 0.45-0.58), respectively. The results were only slightly better for patients prescribed VKA (0.47-0.66 and 0.5-0.55, respectively) in this indication. The results were also unsatisfactory in patients treated for VTE.
None of the scores demonstrated satisfactory discriminatory ability when used in family practice.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02376777.

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.